airflow-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ben Tallman (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (AIRFLOW-249) Refactor the SLA mechanism
Date Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:04:58 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-249?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15343075#comment-15343075
] 

Ben Tallman commented on AIRFLOW-249:
-------------------------------------

My only comment, looking at the PR comments, is that SLA is poorly defined to begin with.
We set it on a per task level, but don't really discuss the differences between an execution
timeout and an SLA timeout.

Not sure, with the attribute being on each task, how this can be handled anywhere but at the
task level.

However, I believe that a DAG level SLA is more important.

> Refactor the SLA mechanism
> --------------------------
>
>                 Key: AIRFLOW-249
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-249
>             Project: Apache Airflow
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: dud
>            Assignee: dud
>
> Hello
> I've noticed the SLA feature is currently behaving as follow :
> - it doesn't work on DAG scheduled @once or None because they have no dag.followwing_schedule
property
> - it keeps endlessly checking for SLA misses without ever worrying about any end_date.
Worse I noticed that emails are still being sent for runs that are never happening because
of end_date
> - it keeps checking for recent TIs even if SLA notification has been already been sent
for them
> - the SLA logic is only being fired after following_schedule + sla has elapsed, in other
words one has to wait for the next TI before having a chance of getting any email. Also the
email reports dag.following_schedule time (I guess because it is close of TI.start_date),
but unfortunately that doesn't match what the task instances shows nor the log filename
> - the SLA logic is based on max(TI.execution_date) for the starting point of its checks,
that means that for a DAG whose SLA is longer than its schedule period if half of the TIs
are running longer than expected it will go unnoticed. This could be demonstrated with a DAG
like this one :
> {code}
> from airflow import DAG
> from airflow.operators import *
> from datetime import datetime, timedelta
> from time import sleep
> default_args = {
>     'owner': 'airflow',
>     'depends_on_past': False,
>     'start_date': datetime(2016, 6, 16, 12, 20),
>     'email': my_email
>     'sla': timedelta(minutes=2),
> }
> dag = DAG('unnoticed_sla', default_args=default_args, schedule_interval=timedelta(minutes=1))
> def alternating_sleep(**kwargs):
>     minute = kwargs['execution_date'].strftime("%M")
>     is_odd = int(minute) % 2
>     if is_odd:
>         sleep(300)
>     else:
>         sleep(10)
>     return True
> PythonOperator(
>     task_id='sla_miss',
>     python_callable=alternating_sleep,
>     provide_context=True,
>     dag=dag)
> {code}
> I've tried to rework the SLA triggering mechanism by addressing the above points., please
[have a look on it|https://github.com/dud225/incubator-airflow/commit/972260354075683a8d55a1c960d839c37e629e7d]
> I made some tests with this patch :
> - the fluctuent DAG shown above no longer make Airflow skip any SLA event :
> {code}
>  task_id  |    dag_id     |   execution_date    | email_sent |         timestamp    
     | description | notification_sent 
> ----------+---------------+---------------------+------------+----------------------------+-------------+-------------------
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:05:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:08:26.058631
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:07:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:10:06.093253
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:09:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:12:06.241773
|             | t
> {code}
> - on a normal DAG, the SLA is being triggred more quickly :
> {code}
> // start_date = 2016-06-16 15:55:00
> // end_date = 2016-06-16 16:00:00
> // schedule_interval =  timedelta(minutes=1)
> // sla = timedelta(minutes=2)
>  task_id  |    dag_id     |   execution_date    | email_sent |         timestamp    
     | description | notification_sent 
> ----------+---------------+---------------------+------------+----------------------------+-------------+-------------------
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:55:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:58:11.832299
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:56:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:59:09.663778
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:57:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 16:00:13.651422
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:58:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 16:01:08.576399
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:59:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 16:02:08.523486
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 16:00:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 16:03:08.538593
|             | t
> (6 rows)
> {code}
> than before (current master branch) :
> {code}
> // start_date = 2016-06-16 15:40:00
> // end_date = 2016-06-16 15:45:00
> // schedule_interval =  timedelta(minutes=1)
> // sla = timedelta(minutes=2)
>  task_id  |    dag_id     |   execution_date    | email_sent |         timestamp    
     | description | notification_sent 
> ----------+---------------+---------------------+------------+----------------------------+-------------+-------------------
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:41:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:44:30.305287
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:42:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:45:35.372118
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:43:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:46:30.415744
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:44:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:47:30.507345
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:45:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:48:30.487742
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:46:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:50:40.647373
|             | t
>  sla_miss | dag_sla_miss1 | 2016-06-16 15:47:00 | t          | 2016-06-16 15:50:40.647373
|             | t
> {code}
> Please note that in this last case (current master) execution_date is equal to dag.following_schedule,
so SLA is being fired after one extra schedule_interval. Also note that SLA are still being
triggered after end_date. Also note the timestamp column being updated seveal time.
> Please tell me what do you think about my patch.
> dud



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message