+1 on this On Jul 30, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Rawlin Peters <[email protected]> wrote:
I've been thinking for a while now that ORT's current pull-based model of checking for queued updates is not really ideal, and I was hoping with "ORT 2.0" that we would switch that paradigm around to where TO itself would push updates out to queued caches. That way TO would never get overloaded because we could tune the level of concurrency for pushing out updates (based on server capacity/specs), and we would eliminate the "waiting period" between the time updates are queued and the time ORT actually updates the config on the cache. I think cache-side config generation is a good idea in terms of enabling canary deployments, but as CDNs continue to scale by adding more and more caches, we might want to get out ahead of the ORT load/waiting problem by flipping that paradigm from "pull" to "push" somehow. Then instead of 1000 caches all asking TO the same question and causing 1000 duplicated reads from the DB, TO would just read the one answer from the DB and send it to all the caches, further reducing load on the DB as well. The data in the "push" request from TO to ORT 2.0 would contain all the information ORT would request from the API itself, not the actual config files. With the API transition from Perl to Go, I think we're eliminating the Perl CPU bottleneck from TO, but the next bottleneck seems like it would be reading from the DB due to the constantly growing number of concurrent ORT requests as a CDN scales up. We should keep that in mind for whatever "ORT 2.0"-type changes we're making so that it won't make flipping that paradigm around even harder. - Rawlin > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:23 PM Robert Butts <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm confused why this is separate from ORT. > > Because ORT does a lot more than just fetching config files. Rewriting all > of ORT in Go would be considerably more work. Contrawise, if we were to put > the config generation in the ORT script itself, we would have to write it > all from scratch in Perl (the old config gen used the database directly, > it'd still have to be rewritten) or Python. This was just the easiest path > forward. > >> I feel like this logic should just be replacing the config fetching logic > of ORT > > That's exactly what it does: the PR changes ORT to call this app instead of > calling Traffic Ops over HTTP: > https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/pull/3762/files#diff-fe8a3eac71ee592a7170f2bdc7e65624R1485 > >> Is that the eventual plan? Or does our vision of the future include this > *and* ORT? > > I reserve the right to develop a strong opinion about that in the future. > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:17 PM ocket8888 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> "I'm just looking for consensus that this is the right approach." >> >> Umm... sort of. I think moving cache configuration to the cache itself >> is a great idea, >> >> but I'm confused why this is separate from ORT. Like if this is going to >> be generating the >> >> configs and it's already right there on the server, I feel like this >> logic should just be >> >> replacing the config fetching logic of ORT (and personally I think a >> neat place to try it >> >> out would be in ORT.py). >> >> >> Is that the eventual plan? Or does our vision of the future include this >> *and* ORT? >> >> >>> On 7/30/19 2:15 PM, Robert Butts wrote: >>> Hi all! I've been working on moving the ATS config generation from >> Traffic >>> Ops to a standalone app alongside ORT, that queries the standard TO API >> to >>> generate its data. I just wanted to put it here, and get some feedback, >> to >>> make sure the community agrees this is the right direction. >>> >>> There's a (very) brief spec here: (I might put more detail into it later, >>> let me know if that's important to anyone) >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TC/Cache-Side+Config+Generation >>> >>> And the Draft PR is here: >>> https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/pull/3762 >>> >>> This has a number of advantages: >>> 1. TO is a monolith, this moves a significant amount of logic out of it, >>> into a smaller per-cache app/library that's easier to test, validate, >>> rewrite, deploy, canary, rollback, etc. >>> 2. Deploying cache config changes is much smaller and safer. Instead of >>> having to deploy (and potentially roll back) TO, you can canary deploy on >>> one cache at a time. >>> 3. This makes TC more cache-agnostic. It moves cache config generation >>> logic out of TO, and into an independent app/library. The app (atstccfg) >> is >>> actually very similar to Grove's config generator (grovetccfg). This >> makes >>> it easier and more obvious how to write config generators for other >> proxies. >>> 4. By using the API and putting the generator functions in a library, >> this >>> really gives a lot more flexibility to put the config gen anywhere you >> want >>> without too much work. You could easily put it in an HTTP service, or >> even >>> put it back in TO via a Plugin. That's not something that's really >> possible >>> with the existing system, generating directly from the database. >>> >>> Right now, I'm just looking for consensus that this is the right >> approach. >>> Does the community agree this is the right direction? Are there concerns? >>> Would anyone like more details about anything in particular? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>
