Actually I am also doing a lot of v1-10-test merges during the last few months (probably several tens of them already). Rarely the conflicts are difficult to solve in fact. We have usually small, localised changes and until we go for full Black file re-formatting, we should be ok (and the change from Zhou seems rather small and localised).
J. On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:25 AM Driesprong, Fokko <fo...@driesprong.frl> wrote: > I would be hesitant to merge it into 1.10.5. When I try to backport > anything into the 1.x branch, I get a whole bunch on merge conflicts, even > on the trivial tickets. For me, the only one who can really comment on this > would be Ash, since he's doing the bulk of the conflict resolving. Apart > from that, I'm really excited to make this happen! > > Cheers, Fokko > > > > Op zo 28 jul. 2019 om 20:23 schreef Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com > >: > > > Some thought I have after looking at the proposal from Zhou. > > > > I think this is one of the most important things feature-wise for > Airflow. > > It looks like we have several in-progress attempts to solve the problem > and > > I guess we should agree common approach. > > > > I like very much the approach of Zhou (AIP-24). It does seem to minimise > > the changes needed in Airflow and it means that we with some > optimisations > > (caching mentioned by Fokko) - it can solve the major pain points and I > > think relatively quick and is potentially portable to 1.10.5 if we have > it. > > > > I wonder how much it overlaps/differs from what Kaxil and Ash ideas are. > If > > I read it correctly - it sounds like this idea will contain some more > > "fundamental" changes. Ones that are likely less backwards-compatible, > and > > potentially taking longer time to implement and test. And likely solving > > some of the problems better or even solving other problems. Am I right > with > > my assumptions? > > > > I think more information on this might be helpful so that we all know if > > those are two different AIPs, or whether they can be joined in one > effort, > > and how they relate to AIP-18/AIP-19 (should those be deprecated or > > independently implemented ?). Also - since 2.0.0 release is half a year > > ahead we should consider how it impact the roadmap. > > > > I can see three approaches here that we as community can follow (maybe I > am > > missing some :) ): > > > > 1) focus our work on single "complete" solution that will take longer > time > > and targets 2.0.0. > > 2) work on two of them: one quick/fast - potentially portable to 1.10.5m > > one longer-term for 2.0.0. > > 3) decide that the simple solution we have from Zhou (maybe with some > > modifications) is our target solution (for both 1.10.5 if we have it and > > 2.0.0): > > > > J. > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 11:43 AM Kevin Yang <yrql...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Nice job Zhou! > > > > > > Really excited, exactly what we wanted for the webserver scaling issue. > > > Want to add another big drive for Airbnb to start think about this > > > previously to support the effort: it can not only bring consistency > > between > > > webservers but also bring consistency between webserver and > > > scheduler/workers. It may be less of a problem if total DAG parsing > time > > is > > > small, but for us the total DAG parsing time is 15+ mins and we had to > > set > > > the webserver( gunicorn subprocesses) restart interval to 20 mins, > which > > > leads to a worst case 15+20+15=50 mins delay between scheduler start to > > > schedule things and users can see their deployed DAGs/changes... > > > > > > I'm not so sure about the scheduler performance improvement: currently > we > > > already feed the main scheduler process with SimpleDag through > > > DagFileProcessorManager running in a subprocess--in the future we feed > it > > > with data from DB, which is likely slower( tho the diff should have > > > negligible impact to the scheduler performance). In fact if we'd keep > the > > > existing behavior, try schedule only fresh parsed DAGs, then we may > need > > to > > > deal with some consistency issue--dag processor and the scheduler race > > for > > > updating the flag indicating if the DAG is newly parsed. No big deal > > there > > > but just some thoughts on the top of my head and hopefully can be > > helpful. > > > > > > And good idea on pre-rendering the template, believe template rendering > > was > > > the biggest concern in the previous discussion. We've also chose the > > > pre-rendering+JSON approach in our smart sensor API > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-17+Airflow+sensor+optimization > > > > > > > and > > > seems to be working fine--a supporting case for ur proposal ;) There's > a > > > WIP > > > PR <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5499> for it just in case > you > > > are interested--maybe we can even share some logics. > > > > > > Thumbs-up again for this and please don't heisitate to reach out if you > > > want to discuss further with us or need any help from us. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Kevin Y > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:54 AM Driesprong, Fokko > <fo...@driesprong.frl > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Looks great Zhou, > > > > > > > > I have one thing that pops in my mind while reading the AIP; should > > keep > > > > the caching on the webserver level. As the famous quote goes: *"There > > are > > > > only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and > naming > > > > things." -- Phil Karlton* > > > > > > > > Right now, the fundamental change that is being proposed in the AIP > is > > > > fetching the DAGs from the database in a serialized format, and not > > > parsing > > > > the Python files all the time. This will give already a great > > performance > > > > improvement on the webserver side because it removes a lot of the > > > > processing. However, since we're still fetching the DAGs from the > > > database > > > > in a regular interval, cache it in the local process, so we still > have > > > the > > > > two issues that Airflow is suffering from right now: > > > > > > > > 1. No snappy UI because it is still polling the database in a > > regular > > > > interval. > > > > 2. Inconsistency between webservers because they might poll in a > > > > different interval, I think we've all seen this: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNrBruPS3r4 > > > > > > > > As I also mentioned in the Slack channel, I strongly feel that we > > should > > > be > > > > able to render most views from the tables in the database, so without > > > > touching the blob. For specific views, we could just pull the blob > from > > > the > > > > database. In this case we always have the latest version, and we > tackle > > > the > > > > second point above. > > > > > > > > To tackle the first one, I also have an idea. We should change the > DAG > > > > parser from a loop to something that uses inotify > > > > https://pypi.org/project/inotify_simple/. This will change it from > > > polling > > > > to an event-driven design, which is much more performant and less > > > resource > > > > hungry. But this would be an AIP on its own. > > > > > > > > Again, great design and a comprehensive AIP, but I would include the > > > > caching on the webserver to greatly improve the user experience in > the > > > UI. > > > > Looking forward to the opinion of others on this. > > > > > > > > Cheers, Fokko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Op za 27 jul. 2019 om 01:44 schreef Zhou Fang > > > <zhouf...@google.com.invalid > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > Hi Kaxi, > > > > > > > > > > Just sent out the AIP: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-24+DAG+Persistence+in+DB+using+JSON+for+Airflow+Webserver+and+%28optional%29+Scheduler > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Zhou > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:33 PM Zhou Fang <zhouf...@google.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kaxil, > > > > > > > > > > > > We are also working on persisting DAGs into DB using JSON for > > Airflow > > > > > > webserver in Google Composer. We target at minimizing the change > to > > > the > > > > > > current Airflow code. Happy to get synced on this! > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is our progress: > > > > > > (1) Serializing DAGs using Pickle to be used in webserver > > > > > > It has been launched in Composer. I am working on the PR to > > upstream > > > > it: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5594 > > > > > > Currently it does not support non-Airflow operators and we are > > > working > > > > on > > > > > > a fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) Caching Pickled DAGs in DB to be used by webserver > > > > > > We have a proof-of-concept implementation, working on an AIP now. > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) Using JSON instead of Pickle in (1) and (2) > > > > > > Decided to use JSON because Pickle is not secure and human > > readable. > > > > The > > > > > > serialization approach is very similar to (1). > > > > > > > > > > > > I will update the RP ( > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5594) > > > to > > > > > > replace Pickle by JSON, and send our design of (2) as an AIP next > > > week. > > > > > > Glad to check together whether our implementation makes sense and > > do > > > > > > improvements on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Zhou > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:37 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We, at Astronomer, are going to spend time working on DAG > > > > Serialisation. > > > > > >> There are 2 AIPs that are somewhat related to what we plan to > work > > > on: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - AIP-18 Persist all information from DAG file in DB > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-18+Persist+all+information+from+DAG+file+in+DB > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> - AIP-19 Making the webserver stateless > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-19+Making+the+webserver+stateless > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We plan to use JSON as the Serialisation format and store it as > a > > > blob > > > > > in > > > > > >> metadata DB. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> *Goals:* > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - Make Webserver Stateless > > > > > >> - Use the same version of the DAG across Webserver & > Scheduler > > > > > >> - Keep backward compatibility and have a flag (globally & at > > DAG > > > > > level) > > > > > >> to turn this feature on/off > > > > > >> - Enable DAG Versioning (extended Goal) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We will be preparing a proposal (AIP) after some research and > some > > > > > initial > > > > > >> work and open it for the suggestions of the community. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We already had some good brain-storming sessions with Twitter > > folks > > > > > (DanD > > > > > >> & > > > > > >> Sumit), folks from GoDataDriven (Fokko & Bas) & Alex (from Uber) > > > which > > > > > >> will > > > > > >> be a good starting point for us. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> If anyone in the community is interested in it or has some > > > experience > > > > > >> about > > > > > >> the same and want to collaborate please let me know and join > > > > > >> #dag-serialisation channel on Airflow Slack. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > >> Kaxil > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
