I do not understand how do you hook to an Erlang application since it does not return the Pid.
Consider for example the snippet below.I am starting a Pid which receives messages to process.However my application behaviour does not return anything.
How do i hook to the Pid i am interested in when using application behaviour ?
.app
{
application,simple_app,
[
{description,"something"},
{mod,{simple_app,[]}},
{modules,[proc]}
]
}
app
-module(simple_app).
-behaviour(application).
-export([start/2, stop/1]).
start(_StartType, _StartArgs) ->
proc:start().
stop(_State) ->
ok.
module
-module(proc).
-export([start/0]).
start()->
Pid=spawn_link(?MODULE,loop,[]),
{ok,Pid}.
loop()->
receive
{From,Message}-> From ! {ok,Message},
loop();
_ ->loop()
end.
P.S I am trying to understand how do i get the root Pid to further use it to issue commands ? In my case i need the Pid of the proc:start module.If my root was a supervisor , i would need the Pid of the supervisor.The application does not return a Pid? How do i hook to it ?
The question thus is when starting the application wouldn't i need a Pid returned by it to then be able to issue commands against?
Your application must depend on kernel and stdlib. You should define their names in your .app file, for example:
{
application,simple_app,
[
{description,"something"},
{mod,{simple_app,[]}},
{modules,[proc]},
{applications, [kernel, stdlib]}
]
}
When you want to start your app, you should use the application module which is part of the kernel application.
It starts some processes to manage your application and I/O handling. It calls YOUR_APP:start(_, _) and this function MUST return a Pid which is running the supervisor behaviour. We often call it the root supervisor of app.
So you have to define an application behaviour (as you did) and a supervisor behaviour.
This supervisor process may start your workers which are doing anything your app wants to do.
If you want to start a process, you define its start specification in your supervisor module. So kernel starts your app and your app starts your supervisor and your supervisor starts your worker(s).
You can register your worker pid with a name and you can send it messages by using its name.
If you have lots of workers you can use a pool of pids which maintains your worker pids.
I think it's OK to play with spawn and spawn_link and sending messages manually to processes. But in production code we usually don't do this. We use OTP behaviours and they do this for us in a reliable and clean manner.
I think it's better to write some gen_servers (another behaviour) and play with handle_call and handle_cast, etc callbacks. Then run some gen_servers under a supervision tree and play with the supervisor API to kill or terminate its children, etc. Then start writing a complete application.
Remember to read the documentation for behaviours carefully.
Related
I have what may be an unusual situation, an application that starts 2 top-level supervisors, e.g.,
...
-behavior(application).
...
start(_StartType, _StartArgs) ->
sup1:start_link(),
sup2:start_link().
They both have a {one_for_one, 0, 1} restart strategy. Their children implement a simple crash function that throws a bad_match error.
To my question, if I call sup1_child1:crash() supervisor sup1 will terminate but the application will keep running (i.e., supervisor sup2 and its children are still available). If instead I call sup2_child1:crash() then the entire application terminates. This latter behavior is what I expect in both cases. If I flip the order of the start_link() calls, i.e.,
...
sup2:start_link(),
sup1:start_link().
then crashing sup1 will cause the application to terminate but crashing sup2 will not. So it appears the order in which start_link() is called determines which supervisor crash will cause the application to terminate. Is this expected? Or am I abusing the supervision tree capability by having 2 root supervisors?
Thanks,
Rich
It is entirely expected, and it is expected because you are abusing the supervision tree capability. There is a hidden supervisor called the "application supervisor". Your application:start function is supposed to return a SINGLE pid which is to be monitored by the application supervisor. If that process crashes, the BEAM VM will also crash (depending, actually, on how the application is started; similar to worker processes, your applications can be permanent or transient (maybe even temporary)).
You should have one top-level supervisor (your application supervisor). If you need two supervisors at the top level, they should both be children of your application supervisor.
I am just reading Manning's Erlang & OTP In Action. Very good book, I think. It contains a nice TCP server example but I'd like to write a UDP server. This is how I structured my app so far.
my_app % app behaviour
|-- my_sup % root supervisor
|-- my_server.erl % gen_server to open UDP connection and dispatch
|-- my_worker_sup % simple_one_to_one supervisor to start workers
|-- my_worker_server % gen_server worker
So, my_app starts my_sup, which in turn starts my_worker_sup and my_server. The UDP connection is opened in my_server in active mode such that handle_info/2 is invoked on each new UDP message in response to which I call my_worker_sup:start_child/2 to pass the message to a new worker process for processing. (The last call to start_child/2 is in fact, as per the book's recommendation, wrapped in an API function to hide some of the details, but this is essentially what happens.)
Am I suffering from OTP fever? Should the my_worker_server really implement the gen_server behaviour? Do I need my_worker_sup at all?
I set it up in like this so that I can use my_worker_sup as a factory via the start_child/2 call but I only use the worker's init/1 and handle_info(timeout,State) functions to first setup state and then to process the message before shutting the worker down.
Should I just spawn the worker directly? Is another behaviour better suited, perhaps?
Thanks,
HC
The key answer to this question is: "how do you want your application to crash?"
If a worker dies, then what should happen? If this should stop everything, including the UDP connection, then surely you can just spawn_link them under the my_server directly, no supervisor tree needed. But if you want them to be able to gracefully restart or something else, then the above diagram is usually better. Perhaps add a monitor on the workers from my_server so it can keep a book of who is alive.
In my utp erlang library, I have almost the same construction. A master handles the UDP socket and forwards to workers based on a routing table kept in ETS. Each worker keeps a connection state and can handle the incoming information.
Since you don't track state, then your best bet is probably to run via proc_lib:spawn_link and then hook them to the s_1_1 supervisor as transient processes. That way, you will force too many crashes to be propagated up the supervisor tree but allow them to exit with normal. This allows you to have them run exactly once.
Note that you could also handle everything directly in the my_server, but then you will not be able to process data concurrently. This may or may not be acceptable. The general rule is to spawn a new process when you have concurrent work that needs to be executed next to each other, blocks or otherwise behaves in some way.
I've set up a simple test-case at https://github.com/bvdeenen/otp_super_nukes_all that shows that an otp application:stop() actually kills all spawned processes by its children, even the ones that are not linked.
The test-case consists of one gen_server (registered as par) spawning a plain erlang process (registered as par_worker) and a gen_server (registered as reg_child), which also spawns a plain erlang process (registered as child_worker). Calling application:stop(test_app) does a normal termination on the 'par' gen_server, but an exit(kill) on all others!
Is this nominal behaviour? If so, where is it documented, and can I disable it? I want the processes I spawn from my gen_server (not link), to stay alive when the application terminates.
Thanks
Bart van Deenen
The application manual says (for the stop/1 function):
Last, the application master itself terminates. Note that all processes with the
application master as group leader, i.e. processes spawned from a process belonging
to the application, thus are terminated as well.
So I guess you cant modify this behavior.
EDIT: You might be able to change the group_leader of the started process with group_leader(GroupLeader, Pid) -> true (see: http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/erlang.html#group_leader-2). Changing the group_leader might allow you to avoid killing your process when the application ends.
I made that mistakes too, and found out it must happen.
If parent process dies, all children process dies no matter what it is registered or not.
If this does not happen, we have to track all up-and-running processes and figure out which is orphaned and which is not. you can guess how difficult it would be. You can think of unix ppid and pid. if you kill ppid, all children dies too. This, I think this must happen.
If you want to have processes independent from your application, you can send a messageto other application to start processes.
other_application_module:start_process(ProcessInfo).
I have a supervisor with two worker processes: a TCP client which handles connection to a remote server and an FSM which handles the connection protocol.
Handling TCP errors in the child process complicates code significantly. So I'd prefer to "let it crash", but this has a different problem: when the server is unreachable, the maximum number of restarts will be quickly reached and the supervisor will crash along with my entire application, which is quite undesirable for this case.
What I'd like is to have a restart strategy with back-off; failing that, it would be good enough if the supervisor was aware when it is restarted due to a crash (i.e. had it passed as a parameter to the init function). I've found this mailing list thread, but is there a more official/better tested solution?
You might find our supervisor cushion to be a good starting point. I use it slow down the restart on things that must be running, but are failing quickly on startup (such as ports that are encountering a resource problem).
I've had this problem many times working with erlang and tried many solutions. I think the best best I've found is to have an extra process that is started by the supervisor and starts the that might crash.
It starts the child on start-up, awaits child exits and restarts the child (with a delay) or exits as appropriate. I think this is simpler than the back-off server (which you link to) as you only need to keep state regarding a single child.
Another solution that I've used is to have to start the child processes as transient and have a separate process that polls and issues restarts to any processes that have crashed.
So first you want to catch an early termination of the child by using a process_flag(trap_exit, true) in your init.
Then you need to decide how long you want to delay a restart by, for example 10 sec., do this in the
handle_info({'EXIT', _Pid, Reason}, State) ->
erlang:send_after(10000, self(), {die, Reason}),
{noreply, State};
Lastly, let the process die with
handle_info({die, Reason}, State) ->
{stop, Reason, State};
I recently ran into a bug where an entire Erlang application died, yielding a log message that looked like this:
=INFO REPORT==== 11-Jun-2010::11:07:25 ===
application: myapp
exited: shutdown
type: temporary
I have no idea what triggered this shutdown, but the real problem I have is that it didn't restart itself. Instead, the now-empty Erlang VM just sat there doing nothing.
Now, from the research I've done, it looks like there are other "start types" you can give an application: 'transient' and 'permanent'.
If I start a Supervisor within an application, I can tell it to make a particular process transient or permanent, and it will automatically restart it for me. However, according to the documentation, if I make an application transient or permanent, it doesn't restart it when it dies, but rather it kills all the other applications as well.
What I really want to do is somehow tell the Erlang VM that a particular application should always be running, and if it goes down, restart it. Is this possible to do?
(I'm not talking about implementing a supervisor on top of my application, because then it's a catch 22: what if my supervisor process crashes? I'm looking for some sort of API or setting that I can use to have Erlang monitor and restart my application for me.)
Thanks!
You should be able to fix this in the top-level supervisor: set the restart strategy to allow one million restarts every second, and the application should never crash. Something like:
init(_Args) ->
{ok, {{one_for_one, 1000000, 1},
[{ch3, {ch3, start_link, []},
permanent, brutal_kill, worker, [ch3]}]}}.
(Example adapted from the OTP Design Principles User Guide.)
You can use heart to restart the entire VM if it goes down, then use a permanent application type to make sure that the VM exits when your application exits.
Ultimately you need something above your application that you need to trust, whether it is a supervisor process, the erlang VM, or some shell script you wrote - it will always be a problem if that happens to fail also.
Use Monit, then setup your application to terminate by using a supervisor for the whole application with a reasonable restart frequency. If the application terminates, the VM terminates, and monit restarts everything.
I could never get Heart to be reliable enough, as it only restarts the VM once, and it doesn't deal well with a kill -9 of the erlang VM.