I'm running PHP commandline scripts as rabbitmq consumers which need to connect to a MySQL database. Those scripts run as Symfony2 commands using Doctrine2 ORM, meaning opening and closing the database connection is handled behind the scenes.
The connection is normally closed automatically when the cli command exits - which is by definition not happening for a long time in a background consumer.
This is a problem when the consumer is idle (no incoming messages) longer then the wait_timeout setting in the MySQL server configuration. If no message is consumed longer than that period, the database server will close the connection and the next message will fail with a MySQL server has gone away exception.
I've thought about 2 solutions for the problem:
Open the connection before each message and close the connection manually after handling the message.
Implementing a ping message which runs a dummy SQL query like SELECT 1 FROM table each n minutes and call it using a cronjob.
The problem with the first approach is: If the traffic on that queue is high, there might be a significant overhead for the consumer in opening/closing connections. The second approach just sounds like an ugly hack to deal with the issue, but at least i can use a single connection during high load times.
Are there any better solutions for handling doctrine connections in background scripts?
Here is another Solution. Try to avoid long running Symfony 2 Workers. They will always cause problems due to their long execution time. The kernel isn't made for that.
The solution here is to build a proxy in front of the real Symfony command. So every message will trigger a fresh Symfony kernel. Sound's like a good solution for me.
http://blog.vandenbrand.org/2015/01/09/symfony2-and-rabbitmq-lessons-learned/
My approach is a little bit different. My workers only process one message, then die. I have supervisor configured to create a new worker every time. So, a worker will:
Ask for a new message.
If there are no messages, sleep for 20 seconds. If not, supervisor will think there's something wrong and stop creating the worker.
If there is a message, process it.
Maybe, if processing a message is super fast, sleep for the same reason than 2.
After processing the message, just finish.
This has worked very well using AWS SQS.
Comments are welcomed.
This is a big problem when running PHP-Scripts for too long. For me, the best solution is to restart the script some times. You can see how to do this in this Topic: How to restart PHP script every 1 hour?
You should also run multiple instances of your consumer. Add a counter to any one and terminate them after some runs. Now you need a tool to ensure a consistent amount of worker processes. Something like this: http://kamisama.me/2012/10/12/background-jobs-with-php-and-resque-part-4-managing-worker/
Related
I'm doing my first foray with mysql and I have a doubt about how to handle the connection(s) my applications has.
What I am doing now is opening a connection and keeping it alive until I terminate my program. I do a mysql_ping() every now and then and the connection is started with MYSQL_OPT_RECONNECT.
The other option (I can think of), would be to start a new connection before doing anything that requires my connection to the database and closing it after I'm done with it.
What are the pros and cons of these two approaches?
what are the "side effects" of a long connection?
What is the most used method of handling this?
Cheers ;)
Some extra details
At this point I am keeping the connection alive and I ping it every now and again to now it's status and reconnect if needed.
In spite of this, when there is some consistent concurrency with queries happening in quick succession, I get a "Server has gone away" message and after a while the connection is re-established.
I'm left wondering if this is a side effect of a prolonged connection or if this is just a case of bad mysql server configuration.
Any ideas?
In general there is quite some amount of overhead incurred when opening a connection. Depending on how often you expect this to happen it might be ok, but if you are writing any kind of application that executes more than just a very few commands per program run, I would recommend a connection pool (for server type apps) or at least a single or very few connections from your standalone app to be kept open for some time and reused for multiple transactions.
That way you have better control over how many connections get opened at the application level, even before the database server gets involved. This is a service an application server offers you, but it can also be rolled up rather easily if you want to keep it smaller.
Apart from performance reasons a pool is also a good idea to be prepared for peaks in demand. When a lot of requests come in and each of them tries to open a separate connection to the database - or as you suggested even more (per transaction) - you are quickly going to run out of resources. Keep in mind that every connection consumes memory inside MySQL!
Also you want to make sure to use a non-root user to connect, because if you don't (I think it is tied to the MySQL SUPER privilege), you might find yourself locked out. MySQL reserves at least one connection for an administrator for problem fixing, but if your app connects with that privilege, all connections would already be used up when you try to put out the fire manually.
Unless you are worried about having too many connections open (i.e. over 1,000), you she leave the connection open. There is overhead in connecting/reconnecting that will only slow things down. If you know you are going to need the connection to stay open for a while, run this query instead of pinging periodically:
SET SESSION wait_timeout=#
Where # is the number of seconds to leave an idle connection open.
What kind of application are you writing? If it's a webscript: keep it open. If it's an executable, pool your connections (if necessary, most of the times a singleton will do).
One of the more interesting "features" in Coldfusion is how it handles external requests. The basic gist of it is that when a query is made to an external source through <cfquery> or or any other external request like that it passes the external request on to a specific driver and at that point CF itself is unable to suspend it. Even if a timeout is specified on the query or in the cfsetting it is flatly ignored for all external requests.
http://www.coldfusionmuse.com/index.cfm/2009/6/9/killing.threads
So with that in mind the issue we've run into is that somehow the communication between our CF server and our mySQL server sometimes goes awry and leaves behind hung threads. They have the following characteristics.
The hung thread shows up in CF and cannot be killed from FusionReactor.
There is no hung thread visible in mySQL, and no active running query (just the usual sleeps).
The database is responding to other calls and appears to be operating correctly.
Max connections have not been reached for the DB nor the user.
It seems to me the only likely candidate is that somehow CF is making a request, mySQL is responding to that request but with an answer which CF ignores and continues to keep the thread open waiting for a response from mySQL. That would explain why the database seems to show no signs of problems, but CF keeps a thread open waiting for the mysterious answer.
Usually these hung threads appear randomly on otherwise working scripts (such as posting a comment on a news article). Even while one thread is hung for that script, other requests for that script will go through, which would imply that the script isn't neccessarily at fault, but rather the condition faced when the script was executed.
We ran some test to determine that it was not a mysql generated max_connections error... we created a user, gave it 1 max connections, tied that connection with a sleep(1000) query and executed another query. Unfortunately, it correctly errored out without generating a hung thread.
So, I'm left at this point with absolutely no clue what is going wrong. Is there some other connection limit or timeout which could be causing the communication between the servers to go awry?
One of the things you should start to look at is the hardware between the two servers. It is possible that you have a router or bridge or NIC that is dropping occasional packets. This can result in the mySQL box thinking it has completed the task while the CF server sits there and waits for a complete response indefinitely, creating a hung thread.
3com has some details on testing for packet loss here: http://support.3com.com/infodeli/tools/netmgt/tncsunix/product/091500/c11ploss.htm#22128
We had a similar problem with a MS SQL server. There, the root cause was a known issue in which, for some reason, the server thinks it's shutting down, and the thread hangs (even though the server is, obviously, not shutting down).
We weren't able to eliminate the problem, but were able to reduce it by turning off pooled DB connections and fiddling with the connection refresh rate. (I think I got that label right -- no access to administrator at my new employment.) Both are in the connection properties in Administrator.
Just a note: The problem isn't entirely with CF. The problem, apparently, affects all Java apps. Which does not, in any way, reduce how annoyed I get by this.
Long story short, but I believe the caused was due to Coldfusion's CF8 image processing. It was just buggy and now in CF9 I have never seen that problem again.
I'm using R to read some data from a MySQL database using the RODBC package. The data is then processed and some results are sent back to the database. The problem is that the server closes the connection after about a minute due to inactivity, which is the time needed to process the data locally. It's a shared server, so the host won't bump up the timeout time.
I think there are two possibilities to get around this:
Open a connection before every database transaction and close it immediately after
Send some small 'ping' command to the server every 30 seconds or so to let the server know that I'm still there.
I can implement the first fairly easily, but it seems pretty slow to constantly open and close connections. Does anyone know an efficient command for the second? Or is a better way altogether?
The first solution is the one I prefer. It's really hard to do the latter with a single threaded program like R. If R is busy running analysis there's no way for it to handle the ping. Unless you are doing hundreds of reads/writes the method of opening and closing the connection should not introduce an extreme amount of overhead.
i have a grails application with a webflow. I store my inner flow objects of interest in the converstaion scope. After entering and leaving the flow a few times, i see that the single user connected to the DB (MySql) generates a lot of threads on the MySql Server which are not released. The processlist in mysql show me the threads in sleeping mode and a netstat on the client shows me established connections to the mysql server.
I assume the connections are held active and not released. But why is that? What do grails exactly do when entering and leaving a flow? Why are so many connections opened and not closed?
Any help would be appreciated.
regards,
masiar
Grails uses hibernate, which in turn uses connection pooling; these are idle connections, waiting for traffic.
You can learn more about Hibernate's connection pooling at: https://www.hibernate.org/214.html
This is actually desirable behavior; it can take a non-negligible amount of time to open a new connection, much more time than it takes to send a query down an open one.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" - unless you are seeing a performance problem related to the database, I'd leave this alone.
Think of the hibernate pooling like a steady and ready pool of cars having their engines turned on at all time for you or your buddies to jump in and go to anywhere you want..., well no, to the database. No need to wait for a taxi or to jump start your own car before you are up and running... all good here
Conversations are meant to stick around as long as they are needed. Often you dive down into workflows and upon finishing them, you return to your old, and thus still alive conversation. It is meant like that... all good here too
I have a rails app that I have serving up XML on an infrequent basis.
This is being run with mongrel and mysql.
I've found that if I don't exercise the app for longer than a few hours it goes dead and starts throwing Errno::EPIPE errors. It seems that the mysql connection get timed out for inactivity or something like that.
It can be restarted with 'mongrel_rails restart -P /path/to/the/mongrel.pid' ... but that's not really a solution.
My collaborator expects the app to be there when he is working on his part (and I am most likely not around).
My question is:
What can I do to prevent this problem from occurring in the 1st place? (e.g. don't time me out!!).
Failing that, is there some code I can insert somewhere to automatically remake the Db connection?
Here's a solution:
https://boxpanel.blueboxgrp.com/public/the_vault/index.php/Mongrel_/_MySQL_Timeout
The timeouts on the above solution seem a little high to me. You don't want your DB timeouts to be too low, because of the amount of memory a connection can use. If a connection is orphaned, you want it to time out reasonably (like not in one week.)
In other places, I also got the following suggestions:
Try setting
config.active_record.verification_timeout to something lower than whatever
your mysql connection timeout setting is.
There's a gem to work around this problem: mysql_retry_lost_connection
http://rubyforge.org/projects/zventstools/
"Reconnect to the MySQL server when you hit a lost connection error".