airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ash Berlin-Taylor <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] AIP-12 Persist DAG into DB
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:52:58 GMT
Comments inline.

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:28, Kevin Yang <> wrote:
> Hi all,
> When I was preparing some work related to this AIP I found something very concerning.
I noticed this JIRA ticket <> is trying
to remove the dependency of dagbag from webserver, which is awesome--we wanted badly but never
got to start work on. However when I looked at some subtasks of it, which try to remove dagbag
dependency from each endpoint, I found the way we remove the dependency of dagbag is not very
ideal. For example this PR <> will
require us to parse the dag file each time we hit the endpoint.

The counter argument: this PR removes the need for the confusing "Refresh" button from the
UI, and in general you only pay the cost for the expensive DAGs when you ask about them. (I
don't know what/when we call the /pickle_info endpoint of the top of my head)

This end point may be one to hold off on (as it can ask for multiple dags) but there are some
that def don't need a full dag bag or to even parse the dag file, the current DAG model has
enough info.

> If we go down this path, we indeed can get rid of the dagbag dependency easily, but we
will have to 1. increase the DB load( not too concerning at the moment ), 2. wait the DAG
file to be parsed before getting the page back, potentially multiple times. DAG file can sometimes
take quite a while to parse, e.g. we have some framework DAG files generating large number
of DAGs from some static config files or even jupyter notebooks and they can take 30+ seconds
to parse. Yes we don't like large DAG files but people do see the beauty of code as config
and sometimes heavily abuseleverage it. Assuming all users have the same nice small python
file that can be parsed fast, I'm still a bit worried about this approach. Continuing on this
path means we've chosen DagModel to be the serialized representation of DAG and DB columns
to hold different properties--it can be one candidate but I don't know if we should settle
on that now. I would personally prefer a more compact, e.g. JSON5, and easy to scale representation(
such that serializing new fields != DB upgrade). 

Do you mean or is this a typo? That might be okay for a nicer user front
end, but the "canonical" version stored in the DB should be something "plainer" like just

I'm not sure that "serializing new fields != DB upgrade" is that big of a concern, as we don't
add fields that often. One possible way of dealing with it if we do is to have a hybrid approach
- a few distinct columns, but then a JSON blob. (and if we were only to support postgres we
could just use JSONb. But I think our friends at Google may object ;) )

Adding a new column in a DB migration with a default NULL shouldn't be an expensive operation,
or difficult to achieve.

> In my imagination we would have to collect the list of dynamic features depending on
unserializable fields of a DAG and start a discussion/vote on dropping support of them( I'm
working on this but if anyone has already done so please take over), decide on the serialized
representation of a DAG and then replace dagbag with it in webserver. Per previous discussion
and some offline discussions with Dan, one future of DAG serialization that I like would look
similar to this:


Something I've thought about before for other things was to embed an API server _into_ the
scheduler - this would be useful for k8s healthchecks, native Prometheus metrics without needed
statsd bridge, and could have endpoints to get information such as this directly. 

I was thinking it would be _in_ the scheduler process using either threads (ick. Python's
still got a GIL doesn't it?) or using async/twisted etc. (not a side-car process like we have
with the logs webserver for `airflow worker`).

(This is possibly an unrelated discussion, but might be worth talking about?)

> We can still discuss/vote which approach we want to take but I don't want the door to
above design to be shut right now or we have to spend a lot effort switch path later.
> Bas and Peter, I'm very sorry to extend the discussion but I do think this is tightly
related to the AIP and PRs behind it. And my sincere apology for bringing this up so late(
I only pull the open PR list occasionally, if there's a way to subscribe to new PR event I'd
love to know how).

It's noisy, but you can subscribe to (but be warned, this also
includes all Jira tickets, edits of every comment on github etc.).

> Cheers,
> Kevin Y
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM Peter van t Hof < <>>
> Hi all,
> Just some comments one the point Bolke dit give in relation of my PR.
> At first, the main focus is: making the webserver stateless. 
> > 1) Make the webserver stateless: needs the graph of the *current* dag
> This is the main goal but for this a lot more PR’s will be coming once my current is
merged. For edges and graph view this is covered in my PR already.
> > 2) Version dags: for consistency mainly and not requiring parsing of the
> > dag on every loop
> In my PR the historical graphs will be stored for each DagRun. This means that you can
see if an older DagRun was the same graph structure, even if some tasks does not exists anymore
in the current graph. Especially for dynamic DAG’s this is very useful.
> > 3) Make the scheduler not require DAG files. This could be done if the
> > edges contain all information when to trigger the next task. We can then
> > have event driven dag parsing outside of the scheduler loop, ie. by the
> > cli. Storage can also be somewhere else (git, artifactory, filesystem,
> > whatever).
> The scheduler is almost untouched in this PR. The only thing that is added is that this
edges are saved to the database but the scheduling itself din’t change. The scheduler depends
now still on the DAG object.
> > 4) Fully serialise the dag so it becomes transferable to workers
> It nice to see that people has a lot of idea’s about this. But as Fokko already mentioned
this is out of scope for the issue what we are trying to solve. I also have some idea’s
about this but I like to limit this PR/AIP to the webserver.
> For now my PR does solve 1 and 2 and the rest of the behaviour (like scheduling) is untouched.
> Gr,
> Peter

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