openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Markus Thömmes <>
Subject Re: Concurrency PR
Date Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:45:25 GMT
Hi Tyson, thanks for pushing forward on this! I'll try to get a review in
on it soon.

Am Fr., 17. Aug. 2018 um 19:04 Uhr schrieb Tyson Norris

> Hi -
> I have been noodling with a few tests and the akka http client and gotten
> the concurrency PR [1] to a good place, I think, so if anyone can help
> review that would be appreciated.
> A couple of notes:
> - akka http client has some different notion of connection reuse than the
> apache client, to address this I created a separate PR [2] which, instead
> of dissuading connection reuse, simple destroys the client (and connection
> pool) when the container is paused. (This change is not reflected in 2795
> FWIW). AFAIK the connection reuse issue only comes up with container
> pauses, so I wanted to address this where it is relevant, and not impose
> additional performance costs for concurrency cases. This client is still
> not enabled by default.
> - There was mention in the comments (for 2795) about need to handle a case
> where a container doesn’t support concurrency, but the action dev has
> enabled it at the action - this PR does NOT deal with that.
> To summarize, enabling concurrency requires:
> - all actions may signal that they support concurrency, so all images that
> might be used would need to support concurrency, if concurrency is enabled
> in your deployment
> - log collection must be handled outside of invoker (since invoker does
> not deal with interleaved log parsing)
> - wsk cli will require changes to allow action devs to set the concurrency
> limits on actions (current PR only exposes the OW api for doing this); I
> have a PR queued up for that [3]. (Will need another PR for the cli once
> the client-go lib is updated)
> To better handle the case of images that don’t support concurrency, or
> don’t support log collection from invoker, I would suggest we change the
> container protocol to allow containers to broadcast their support either
> via the /init endpoint, or via a new /info endpoint. This of course would
> not give feedback until an action is executed (as opposed to when action is
> created), but I think this is ok. I will work on a separate PR for this,
> but want to mention some thoughts here about possible approaches to address
> these known concerns.

Why not make this part of the runtimes manifest? Handling this as late as
actually invoking the action feels kinda weird if we can just as well know
ahead of time, that creating an action with a concurrency > 1 will not work
and should therefore forbid creation at all. Any strong reason not to
encode that information into the runtimes manifest?

> Thanks
> Tyson
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message