The cron part is easy and covered elsewhere. What I have is a job that runs mostly for six hours but sometimes only two or three. If I schedule the job for every six hours and it only runs for two, I waste four hours waiting for the next one. If I schedule it every hour, then when it runs six hours, five jobs are going to stack up waiting their turn.
Rigging something in the job itself to figure out if it already running is sub optimal. There are four machines involved so I can't examine process tables. I would need a semaphore on disk or in some other shared resource, which involves making sure it is cleared not only when the job finishes, but when it dies.
I could also query Jenkins to see if a job is already running, but that's also more code I need to write and get right.
Is there a way to tell Jenkins directly: Schedule only if you are not already running?
Maybe disableConcurrentBuilds could help? https://www.jenkins.io/doc/book/pipeline/syntax/
And you can also clean the queue if needed
Related
I am using Quartz.Net 3.0.7 to manage a scheduler. In my test environment I have two instances of the scheduler running. I have a test process that runs for exactly 2 hours before ending. Quartz is configured to start the process every 10 seconds and I am using the DisallowConcurrentExecution attribute to prevent multiple instances of the task from running at the same time. 80% of the time this is working as expected. Quartz will start up the process and prevent any other instances of the task from starting until after the initial one has completed. If I stop one of the two services hosting Quart, then the other instance picks up the task at the next 10-second mark.
However, after keeping these two Quartz services running for 48 uninterrupted hours, I have discovered a couple of times where things went horribly wrong. At times host B will start up the task, even though the task is still in the middle of its 2 hour execution on host A. At one point I even found the process had started up 3 times on host B, all within a 10 minute period. So, for a two hour period, the one task had three instances running simultaneously. After all three finished, Quartz went back to the expected schedule of only having one instance running at a time.
If these overlapping tasks were happening 100% of the time, I would think there is something wrong on my end, but since it seems to happen only about 20% of the time, I am thinking it must be something in the Quartz implementation. Is this by design or is it a bug? If there is an event I can capture from Quart.Net to tell me that another instance of a task has started up, I can listen for that and stop the existing task from running. I just need to make sure that DisallowConcurrentExecution is getting obeyed and prevent a task from running multiple instances concurrently. Thanks.
Edit:
I added logic that uses context.Scheduler.GetCurrentlyExecutingJobs to look for any jobs that have the same JobDetail.Key but a different FireInstanceId when my task starts up. If I find another currently executing job, I will prevent this instance from doing anything. I am finding that in the duplicate concurrent scenario, Quartz is reporting that there are no other jobs currently executing with the same JobDetail.Key. Should that be possible? Under what case would Quartz.Net start an IJob, lose track of it as an executing job after a few minutes, but allow it to continue executing without cancelling the CancellationToken?
Edit2:
I found an instance in my logs where Quartz started a task as expected. Then, one minute later, Quartz tried to start up 9 additional instances, each with a different FireInstanceId. My custom code blocked the 9 additional instances, because it can see that the original instance was still going, by calling GetCurrentlyExecutingJobs to get a list of running jobs. I double checked and the ConcurrentExecutionDisallowed flag is true on all of the tasks at runtime, so I would expect that Quartz would prevent the duplicate instances. This sounds like a bug. Am I expected to handle this manually or should I expect Quartz to get this right?
Edit3:
I am definitely looking at two different problems. In both cases Quartz.Net is launching my IJob instance with a new FireInstanceId while there is already another FireInstanceId running for the same JobKey. In one scenario I can see that both FireInstanceIds are active by calling GetCurrentlyExecutingJobs. In the second scenario calling GetCurrentlyExecutingJobs shows that the first FireInstanceId is no longer running, even though I can see from my logs that the original instance is still running. Both of these scenarios result in multiple instances of my IJob running at the same time, which is not acceptable. It is easy enough to tackle the first scenario by calling GetCurrentlyExecutingJobs when my IJob starts, but the second scenario is harder. I will have to ping GetCurrentlyExecutingJobs on an interval and stop the task if it’s FireInstanceId has disappeared from the active list. Has anyone else really not noticed this behavior?
I found that if I set this option, that I no longer have overlapping executing jobs. I still wish that Quartz would cancel the job’s cancellation token, though, if it lost track of the executing job.
QuartzProperties.Add("quartz.jobStore.clusterCheckinInterval", "60000");
I new to ROR. Wanted to ask something for confirmation. If I run long schedule job. Will it block others schedule job? I have others job running every 5 minutes, Plan to write something that easily run more than 3 hours. Will it block the 5 minutes job?
The whenever gem is basically only a way to configure and handle Cron jobs.
That said: At the given time Cron will just start and run a configured job. Cron will not block other jobs nor it cares if a job fails or if another job is still running.
Limiting factor might be:
Memory/CPU consumption: Each job consumes memory/CPU. If there are too many jobs running at the same time your server might run out of memory or might have a high load. But this doesn't really block other jobs it just slows down the whole server.
Database locks: If your jobs perform tasks that lock database tables other queries might be blocked and need to wait. But this is not Cron specific, this depends on what your code actually does.
I need to process files which get uploaded and it can take as little as 1 second or as much as 10 minutes. Currently my solution is to make a quartz job with a timer of 30 seconds and then process and arbitrary job whenever it hits. There are several problems with this.
One: if the job will take less than a few seconds it is wasteful to make things wait 30 seconds for the job queue.
Two: if there is only one long job in the queue it could feasibly try to do it twice.
What I want is a timeless queue. When things are added the are started immediately if there is a free worker. Is there a solution for this? I was looking at jesque, but I couldn't tell if it can do this.
What you are looking for is a basic message queue. There are lots of options out there, but my favorite for Grails is RabbitMQ. The Grails plugin for it is quite good and it performs well in my experience.
In general, message queues allow you to have N producers (things creating jobs") adding work messages to a queue and then M consumers pulling jobs off of the queue and processing them. When a worker completes it's job, it simply asks the queue for the next job to process and if there is none, it just waits for the queue to give it something to do. The queue also keeps track of success / failure of message processing (you can control this) so that you don't give the same message to more than one worker.
This has the advantage of not relying on polling (so you can start processing as soon as things come in) and it's also much more scaleable. You can scale both your producers and consumers up or down as needed, decoupling the inputs from the outputs so that you can take a traffic spike and then work your way through it as you have the resources (workers) available.
To solve problem one just make the job check for new uploaded files every 5 seconds (or 3 seconds, or 1 second). If the check for uploaded files is quick then there is no reason you can't run it often.
For problem two you just need to record when you start processing a file to ensure it doesn't get picked-up twice. You could create a table in the database, or store the information in memory somewhere.
We're using Quartz.Net to schedule about two hundred repeating jobs. Each job uses the same IJob implementing class, but they can have different schedules. In practice, they end up having the same schedule, so we have about two hundred job details, each with their own (identical) repeating/simple trigger, scheduled. The interval is one hour.
The task this job performs is to download an rss feed, and then download all of the media files linked to in the rss feed. Prior to downloading, it wipes the directory where it is going to place the files. A single run of a job takes anywhere from a couple seconds to a dozen seconds (occasionally more).
Our method of scheduling is to call GetScheduler() on a new StdSchedulerFactory (all jobs are scheduled at once into the same IScheduler instance). We follow the scheduling with an immediate Start().
The jobs appear to run fine, but upon closer inspection we are seeing that a minority of the jobs occasionally - or almost never - run.
So, for example, all two hundred jobs should have run at 6:40 pm this evening. Most of them did. But a handful did not. I determine this by looking at the file timestamps, which should certainly be updated if the job runs (because it deletes and redownloads the file).
I've enabled Quartz.Net logging, and added quite a few logging statements to our code as well.
I get log messages that indicate Quartz is creating and executing jobs for roughly one minute after the round of jobs starts.
After that, all activity stops. No jobs run, no log messages are created. Zero.
And then, at the next firing interval, Quartz starts up again and my log files update, and various files start downloading. But - it certainly appears like some JobDetail instances never make it to the head of the line (so to speak) or do so very infrequently. Over the entire weekend, some jobs appeared to update quite frequently, and recently, and others had not updated a single time since starting the process on Friday (it runs in a Windows Service shell, btw).
So ... I'm hoping someone can help me understand this behavior of Quartz.
I need to be certain that every job runs. If it's trigger is missed, I need Quartz to run it as soon as possible. From reading the documentation, I thought this would be the default behavior - for SimpleTrigger with an indefinite repeat count it would reschedule the job for immediate execution if the trigger window was missed. This doesn't seem to be the case. Is there any way I can determine why Quartz is not firing these jobs? I am logging at the trace level and they just simply aren't there. It creates and executes an awful lot of jobs, but if I notice one missing - all I can find is that it ran it the last time (for example, sometimes it hasn't run for hours or days). Nothing about why it was skipped (I expected Quartz to log something if it skips a job for any reason), etc.
Any help would really, really be appreciated - I've spent my entire day trying to figure this out.
After reading your post, it sounds a lot like the handful of jobs that are not executing are very likely misfiring. The reason that I believe this:
I get log messages that indicate Quartz is creating and executing jobs for roughly one minute after the round of jobs starts.
In Quartz.NET the default misfire threshold is 1 minute. Chances are, you need to examine your logging configuration to determine why those misfire events are not being logged. I bet if you throw open the the floodgates on your logging (ie. set everything to debug, and make sure that you definitely have a logging directive for the Quartz scheduler class), and then rerun your jobs. I'm almost positive that the problem is the misfire events are not showing up in your logs because the logging configuration is lacking something. This is understandable, because logging configuration can get very confusing, very quickly.
Also, in the future, you might want to consult the quartz.net forum on google, since that is where some of the more thorny issues are discussed.
http://groups.google.com/group/quartznet?pli=1
Now, your other question about setting the policy for what the scheduler should do, I can't specifically help you there, but if you read the API docs closely, and also consult the google discussion group, you should be able to easily set the misfire policy flag that suits your needs. I believe that Trigger's have a MisfireInstruction property which you can configure.
Also, I would argue that misfires introduce a lot of "noise" and should be avoided; perhaps bumping up the thread count on your scheduler would be a way to avoid misfires? The other option would be to stagger your job execution into separate/multiple batches.
Good luck!
I'm very happy with By so far, only I have this one issue:
When one process takes 1 or 2 hours to complete, all other jobs in the queue seem to wait for that one job to finish. Worse still is when uploading to a server which time's out regularly.
My question: is Bj running jobs in parallel or one after another?
Thank you,
Damir
BackgroundJob will only allow one worker to run per webserver instance. This is by design to keep things simple. Here is a quote from Bj's README:
If one ignores platform specific details the design of Bj is quite simple: the
main Rails application submits jobs to table, stored in the database. The act
of submitting triggers exactly one of two things to occur:
1) a new long running background runner to be started
2) an existing background runner to be signaled
The background runner refuses to run two copies of itself for a given
hostname/rails_env combination. For example you may only have one background
runner processing jobs on localhost in development mode.
The background runner, under normal circumstances, is managed by Bj itself -
you need do nothing to start, monitor, or stop it - it just works. However,
some people will prefer manage their own background process, see 'External
Runner' section below for more on this.
The runner simply processes each job in a highest priority oldest-in fashion,
capturing stdout, stderr, exit_status, etc. and storing the information back
into the database while logging it's actions. When there are no jobs to run
the runner goes to sleep for 42 seconds; however this sleep is interuptable,
such as when the runner is signaled that a new job has been submitted so,
under normal circumstances there will be zero lag between job submission and
job running for an empty queue.
You can learn more on the github page: Here