Hello! On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 07:08:40PM +0000, Vladimir Kokshenev via nginx-devel wrote:
> Hello! > > This is the two-part proposal to open-source periodic upstream server > resolution > and implement a dedicated service worker for nginx. The purpose of this e-mail > is to describe the WHY and solicit feedback. > > Nginx supports domain names in the upstream server configuration. > Currently, domain names are resolved at configuration time only, > and there are no subsequent name resolutions. > > There are plans to open-source re-resolvable upstream servers. > This will allow applying DNS updates to upstream configurations in runtime. > So, there is a need to support periodic asynchronous operations. > And a dedicated service worker is a possible architectural way to address > this. > > The master process reads and parses configuration and creates the service > worker > when needed (in a similar way to cache-related processes). > > The service worker manages periodic name resolutions and updates corresponding > upstream configurations. The name resolution relies on the existing nginx > resolver and upstream zone functionality. > > The service worker will be responsible solely for periodic background tasks > and wouldn't accept client connections. > > The service worker should be the last worker process to shut down > to maintain the actual state of upstreams when there are active workers. > > Alternative architecture considered was about choosing one of the regular > workers (e.g., worker zero) to take care of periodic upstream server > resolution, > but it creates asymmetry in responsibilities and load for this dedicated > worker. Both alternatives look bad to me. We already have dedicated processes to load and manage caches, and I tend to think that the only thing which somehow justifies these being dedicated is that cache management implies disk-intensive blocking operations. Mixing these with normal request processing will cause latency issues, not to mention will be non-trivial to implement. On the other hand, we are already seeing issues with dedicated process being used: in some configurations just one cache manager process simply isn't enough to remove all the files being add by many worker processes. As such, I generally tend to think that dedicated processes is a wrong way to go. With any special requirements like "last to shut down" the whole idea becomes even worse. And in this particular case all operations are perfectly asynchronous, so there is no justification like in the cache manager case. Similarly, "choosing one of the regular workers (e.g., worker zero)" looks wrong (and I've already provided this feedback previously). All workers are expected to be equal, and doing something only in a particular worker is expected to cause issues. E.g., consider a worker is stopped (due to a bug or intentionally to debug an issue) - this shouldn't disrupt operations of other workers. Rather, I would recommend focusing on doing all periodic tasks in a way which doesn't depend on being run in the particular worker. The simplest approach would be to run tasks in all worker processes, with some minimal checks to avoid duplicate work. -- Maxim Dounin http://mdounin.ru/ _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list -- nginx-devel@nginx.org To unsubscribe send an email to nginx-devel-le...@nginx.org
