openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Markus Thömmes <markusthoem...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Discussion] Use TransactionID as ActivationID
Date Mon, 27 Aug 2018 08:16:48 GMT
Hi Dominic,

Am Mo., 27. Aug. 2018 um 07:41 Uhr schrieb Dominic Kim <style9595@gmail.com
>:

> Hey Markus.
>
> Yes readable activation is a great idea as it would be useful for debugging
> and some cases such as you mentioned(groupable activations.)
>
> BTW, are you suggesting to keep activation generation way in Nginx, and
> allow controllers to have parent/child activations in order to avoid
> duplicate IDs?
> More precisely, controllers will generate ID only in case of triggers and
> sequence actions.
> So if we make parent/child relationship in controllers only, it won't be
> duplicate because there is no such notion in activation generation in
> Nginx.
> Do I understand correctly?
>

Yes I think you got that right. Nginx would generate the activationId for
the initial trigger fire for example. For each rule the controller invokes
then, the controller can generate a child id for that invocation. If we can
make that readable, we can easily correlate the parent with the child,
giving us even more of a gain from this proposal.

So from my PoV: Go for it!


>
> Thanks
> Best regards
> Dominic.
>
>
> 2018년 8월 23일 (목) 오후 5:34, Markus Thömmes <markusthoemmes@apache.org>님이
작성:
>
> > Hi Dominic,
> >
> > this is certainly a good thought and would simplify debugging production
> > systems as well.
> >
> > A rough and dirty idea for the uniqueness issue you mentioned:
> > What if we just append a suffix for each of the child ids (essentially
> they
> > are in a parent/child relationship). A simple example:
> >
> > Sequence action invoke, Router generated id: abc-def (used as
> TransactionId
> > and ActivationId)
> > Invocation of the first action: abc-def-1
> > Invocation of the second action: abc-def-2
> > ...
> >
> > The suffix doesn't necessarily need to be a number, but especially in the
> > case of sequences, that could greatly help observability and
> understanding
> > what's going on. It'd also help operators, because the respective
> requests
> > would be groupable (logwise) by the respective "BaseActivationId"
> (abc-def
> > in the example). As the ActivationId no longer needs to be a UUID anyway,
> > we can do whatever we want to do with it.
> >
> > If we use numbers, we need to ensure consistent generation of these of
> > course. I think though, both Triggers and Sequence invocations will only
> be
> > handled locally by one Controller, so it can hand out the numbers
> > guaranteeing they don't overlap.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Markus
> >
> > Am Do., 23. Aug. 2018 um 05:39 Uhr schrieb Dominic Kim <
> > style9595@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Dear whiskers.
> > >
> > > This is to discuss to whether we will allow using TransactionID as
> > > ActivationID.
> > > Some of discussion history is here:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3671
> > >
> > > As that PR is merged, now ActivationID is included in response headers.
> > >
> > > Currently, TransactionID is being generated in Nginx with this change:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3199
> > >
> > > Then, one question that Rabbah raised comes up.
> > > Why do we have similar two IDs in headers? (x-request-id,
> > > x-openwhisk-activation-id)
> > > Couldn't it be possible to use just one ID for both the cases?
> > >
> > > Basic idea is just to use TransactionID(x-request-id) as a
> ActivationID.
> > > But there are still few concerns that Christian described here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3671#issuecomment-392002543
> > >
> > > And the main issue is the uniqueness of ActivationID.
> > > If we allow using TransactionID as ActivationID, ActivationID could be
> > > generated in two different places(Nginx, controller) as a controller
> also
> > > needs to generate activation id in case of triggers and sequence
> actions
> > > invocation.
> > >
> > > I want to kick off the discussion and listen to a good idea from many
> > > whiskers.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Regards
> > > Dominic.
> > >
> >
>

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