From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 416BF1FF15E for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 13:22:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 036C83CD59; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 13:23:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 13:22:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <1045470937.13120.1723202551905@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <D3B9YIIHKRP2.2EX6MKWE3C0NP@proxmox.com> References: <D3B9YIIHKRP2.2EX6MKWE3C0NP@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev67 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.022 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] RFC: Scheduler for PBS X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> > On 09.08.2024 11:31 CEST Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com> wrote: > Architectural Overview > ---------------------- > > The scheduler internally contains the type of job queue that is being > used, which in our case is a simple FIFO queue. We also used HTTP > long-polling [3] to schedule backup jobs, responding to the client only > when the backup job is started. > > While long-polling appears to work fine for our current intents and > purposes, we still want to test if any alternatives (e.g. > "short-polling", as in normal polling) are more robust. > > The main way to communicate with the scheduler is via its event loop. > This is a plain tokio task with an inner `loop` that matches on an enum > representing the different events / messages the scheduler may handle. > Such an event would be e.g. `NewBackupRequest` or `ConfigUpdate`. > > The event loop receives events via an mpsc channel and may respond to > them individually via oneshot channels which are set up when certain > events are created. The benefit of tokio's channels is that they can > also work in blocking contexts, so it is possible to completely isolate > the scheduler in a separate thread if needed, for example. > > Because users should also be able to dynamically configure the > scheduler, configuration changes are handled via the `ConfigUpdate` > event. That way even the type of the queue can be changed on the fly, > which one prototype is able to do. > > Furthermore, our prototypes currently run inside `proxmox-backup-proxy` > and are reasonably decoupled from the rest of PBS, due to the scheduler > being event-based. Thanks for the write-up, this does sound interesting! Do you plan to also include the notification system, e.g. by sending out notification events based on events/messages handled by the scheduler? Or will that solely be handled by the worker tasks? What about periodic tasks that should be run at a given time, e.g. for server side alerts/monitoring tasks [0]? From you description I suppose these would simply be a different job type, and therefore be queued/executed based on their priority? Can you already share some code (maybe of one of the prototypes), so one can have a closer look and do some initial testing or is it still to experimental for that? Cheers, Chris [0] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5108 _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel