So, great news, I wrote a book and it’s available!
It’s called Python Automation Cookbook, and it’s aimed to people that already know a bit of Python (not necessarily developers only), but would like to use it to automate common tasks like search files, creating different kind of documents, adding graphs, sending emails, text messages, etc. It’s written in the cookbook format, so it’s a collection of recipes that can be read independently, though there’s always references to show how to combine them to create more complex flows.
This is my first written book, so all is very exciting. The process itself has been a lot of work, but not without its fun parts. I’m also quite proud of having written it in English, not being my first language.
Just putting here the slides for my presentation in the PyCon Ireland, that are a follow up from this blog post. I’ll try to include the video if/when available.
I hand drawn all the slides myself, so it was a lot of fun work!
Disclaimer: I know personally and worked with a good portion of the conference organizers and talkers. I label them with an asterisk*.
The ShipItCon finally took place last Friday. I think it’s quite impressive, given the short amount of time since announcing it and being the first edition, that was so well organized. The venue was very good (and fairly unusual for a tech conference), and all the usual things that are easy to take as granted (food, space, projector, sound, etc) work like clockwork. Kudos to the organizers.
The conference was oriented towards releasing online services, with special emphasis on Continuous Integration/Delivery. I think that focusing a conference over this kind of topic is challenging, as talks need to be generic enough in terms of tools, but narrow enough that is useful. Conferences about a specific technology (like PyCon, RubyConf or Linux Con) are more focused by concept.
The following is some notes, ideas and follow up articles that I took. Obviously, there are biased over the kind of things I find more interesting. I’ll try to link the presentation slides if/once they’re available.
- The keynote by the Romero family was a great story and addressed a lot of specific points to the game industry (like the design challenges). It was also the exception in talking about shipping something other than a service, but a game (in Steam and iOS). I played a little GunMan Taco Track over the weekend!
- “Ship a game while on a ship“. They released part of the game while on the Queen Elizabeth cruise, crossing the Atlantic.
- Release often and use feature toggles, detaching the code release and feature release. This is a point done in the Frederick Meyer talk that I heard recently in other places.
- Friday night releases make me cringe, but it can make sense if the weekend is the lowest activity point of your customers.
- Dependency trees grow to be more and more complex, to the point no one understands them anymore and only automated tools can plot them.
- Challenges in treating data in CI. Use production data? A subset? Fake data? Redacted data? Performance analysis can be tricky.
- Automate what you care about
- The need for early testing, including integration/system/performance, was the theme around Chloe Condon talk. Typically, a lot of testing will be performed at the “main branch” (after a feature is merged back) level that can be prepared in advance, giving better and faster feedback to developers. Test early, test often.
- She presented Codefresh with seems an interesting Cloud CI tool aimed at working with containers.
- Lauri Apple talked about communication and how important READMEs and documentation are for projects, both internal and external. The WHAT to build is a key aspect that shouldn’t be overlooked.
- READMEs should include a roadmap, as well as info about installation, run and configure the code.
- This project offers help, review and advice for READMEs. I’ll definitively submit a review for ffind (after I review it and polish it a little bit myself).
- She talked about the Open Organization Maturity Model, a framework about how open organizations are.
- A couple of projects in Zalando that catches my eye:
- If it hurts, do it more frequently. A great quote for Continuous Delivery and automated pipelines. Darin Egan talked about the mindfullness principes and how the status quo get challenges and driving change opposes inertia.
- The main point in Ingrid Epure‘s talk was the integration of security practices during the development process and the differences between academia and engineering practices.
- Linters can play a part in enforcing security practices, as well as automating autoformatting to leave format differences out from the review process.
- Standardizing the logs is also a great idea. Using Canonical Log Lines for Online Visibility. I talked before about the need to increasing logs and generate them during the development process.
- Eric Maxwell talked about the need to standardise the “upper levels” of the apps, mainly related to logging and metrics, and making applications (Modern Applications) more aware of their environment (choreography vs orquestration) and abstracted from the underlying infrastructure.
- He presented habitat.sh, a tool aimed at working with these principles.
- Packaging the application code and letting the tool to do the heavy lifting on the “plumbing“
- The pipeline in Intercom was discussed by Eugene Kenny, and the differences between “the ideal pipeline” and “the reality” of making dozens of deployments every day.
- For example, fully test and deploy only the latest change in the pipeline, speeding deployments at the expense of fewer separations of changes.
- Or allow locking the pipeline when things are broken.
- Follow up article: Continuous Deployment at Instagram
- Observability is an indispensable property for online services: the ability to check what’s going on in production systems. Damien Marshall* had this concept of graphulsion that I can only share.
He gave some nice ideas on observability through the whole life cycle:
- Make reporting logs and metrics simple
- Account for the effort to do observability work
- Standardize what to report. The three most useful metrics are Request Rate, Error Rate and Duration per Request.
- Do capacity planning. Know approximately the limits of your system and calculate the utilization of the system (% of that limit)
- Ship the observability
- Make metrics easy to use
- Centralise dashboard views across different systems
- Good alerting is hard. Start and keep it simple.
- Riot Games uses custom generation of services to generate skeletons and standardise good practices and reduce development time. Adam Comeford talked about those practices and how they implemented them.
- Thinking inside the container.
- Docker-gc is a tool to reduce the size of image repos, as they tend to grow very fast very quickly.
- Jacopo Scrinzi talked about defining Infrastructure as Code, making the infrastructure changes through the same process as code (review, subjected to source control, etc). In particular using Terraform and Atlas (now Terraform Enterprise) to make automatic deployments, following CI practices for infrastructure.
- Using modules in Terraform simplifies and standardises common systems.
- The last keynote was about Skypilot, an initiative inside Demonware to deploy a game fully using Docker containers over Marathon/Mesos , in the Cloud. It was given by Tom Shaw* and the game was last year’s release of Skylanders. As I’ve worked in Demonware, I know how big an undertaking is to prepare the launch of a game previously in dedicated hardware (and how much in underused to avoid risks), so this is a huge improvement.
As noted by the amount of notes I took, I found the conference very interesting and full of ideas that are worth following up. I really expect a ShipItCon 2018 full of great content.
You can upgrade with
pip install ffind --upgrade
This will be the latest version to support Python 2.6.
I used what I learn and some decisions to create a template for new projects. Part of software development is mainly plumbing. Laying bricks together and connecting parts so the important bits of software can be accessing. That’s a pretty important part of the work, but it can be quite tedious and frustrating.
This is somehow a very personal work. I am using my own opinionated ideas for it, but I’ll explain the thought process behind them. Part of the idea is to add to the discussion on how a containerised Django application should work and what is the basic functionality that is expected for a fully production-ready service.
The code is available here. This blog post covers more the why’s, while the README in the code covers more the how’s.
GO CHECK THE CODE IN GITHUB!
- a Django RESTful project template
- sets up a cluster of Docker containers using
- include niceties like logging, system tests and metrics
- code extensively commented
- related blog post explaining the why and opening the discussion to how to work with Docker
Docker is having a lot of attention in the last few years, and it promises to revolutionise everything. Part of it is just hype but nevertheless is a very interesting tool. And as every new tool, we’re still figuring out how it should be used.
The first impression when dealing with Docker is to treat it as a new way of a virtual machine. Certainly, it was my first approach. But I think is better to think of it a process (a service) wrapped in a filesystem.
All the Dockerfile and image building process is to ensure that the filesystem contains the proper code and configuration files to then start the process. This goes against daemonising and other common practices in previous environments, where the same server handled lots of processes and services working in unison. In the Docker world, we replace this with several containers working together, without sharing the same filesystem.
The familiar Linux way of working includes a lot of external services and conveniences that are no longer required. For example, starting multiple services automatically on boot makes no sense if we only care to run one process.
This rule has some exceptions, as we’ll see later, but I think is the best approach. In some cases, a single service requires multiple processes, but simplicity is key.
The way Docker file system work is by adding a layer on top of another layer. That makes the build system to series of steps that execute a command that changes the filesystem and then exits. The next step builds on top of the other.
This has very interesting properties, like the inherent caching system, which is very useful for the build process. The way to create a Dockerfile is to set the parts that are least common to change (e.g. dependencies) on top, and put at
the end of it the ones that are most likely to need to be updated. That way, build times are shorter, as only the latest steps need to be repeated.
Another interesting trick is to change the order of the steps in the Dockerfile while actively developing, and move them to their final place once the initial setup (packages installed, requirements, etc) is stable.
Another property is the fact that each of these layers can only add to a filesystem, but never subtract. Once a build operation has added something, removing it won’t free space of the container. As we want to keep our containers as minimal as possible, care on each of the steps should be taken. In some cases, this means to add something, use it for an operation, and then remove it in a single step. A good example is compilation libraries. Add the libraries, compile, and then remove them as they won’t be used (only the generated binaries).
Given this minimalistic approach, it’s better to start as small as possible. Alpine is a Linux distribution focused on minimalistic containers and security. Their base image is just around 4MB. This is a little misleading, as installing Python will bring it to around 70MB, but it’s still much better than something like an Ubuntu base image, at around 120MB start and very easy to get to 1GB if the image build is done in a traditional way, installing different services and calling
apt-get with abandon.
This template creates an image around 120MB size.
Running a cluster
A single container is not that interesting. After all is not much more than a single service, probably a single process. A critical tool to work with containers is to be able to set several of them to work in unison.
The chosen tool in this case is docker-compose which is great to set up a development cluster. The base of it is the
docker-compose.yaml file, that defines several “services” (containers) and links them all together. The
docker-compose.yaml file contains the names, build instructions, dependencies and describes the cluster.
Note there are two kinds of services. One is the container that runs and ends, producing some result as an operation. For example, run the tests. It starts, runs the tests, and then ends.
The other one is to run a long running service. For example, run a web server. The server starts and it doesn’t stop on its own.
In the docker-compose there are both kind of services.
db are long running services, while
system-test are operations, but most of them are services.
It is possible to differentiate grouping them in different files, but dealing with multiple
docker-compose.yaml files is cumbersome.
The different services defined, and their relationships, are described in this diagram. All the services are described individually later.
As it is obvious from the diagram, the main one is
server. The ones in yellow are operations, while the ones in blue are services.
Note that all services exposes their services in different ports.
All the files that relates to the building of containers of the cluster are in the
./docker subdirectory, with the exception of the main
docker-compose.yaml, that are in the root directory.
./docker directory, there’s a subdir for each service. Note that, because the image is the same, some services like
test inherits the files under
The template Django app
The main app is in the directory
./src and it’s a simple RESTful application that exposes a collection of tweets, elements that have a text, a timestamp and an id. Individual tweets can be retrieved and new ones can be created. A basic CRUD interface.
On top of that, there are unit tests stored in Django common way (inside
./src/tweet/tests.py. To run the tests, it makes usage of pytest and pytest-django. Pytest is a very powerful framework for running tests, and it’s worth to spend some time to learn how to use it for maximum efficiency.
All of this is the core of the application and the part that should be replaced for doing interesting stuff. The rest of it is plumbing to making this code to run and to have it properly monitored. There are also system tests, but I’ll talk about them later.
The application is labelled as
templatesite. Feel free to change the name to whatever makes sense for you.
The main server
server service is the core of the system. Though the same image is used for multiple purposes, the main idea is to set up the Django code and make it run in a web server.
As shown, the nginx process will serve the static files, as generated by Django
collectstatic command, and redirect everything else towards a uWSGI container that runs the Django code. They are connected by a UNIX socket.
Another decision has been to create a single worker on the container. This follows the minimalistic approach. Also, Prometheus (see below) doesn’t like to be round robin behind a load balancer in the same server, as the metrics reported are inconsistent.
It is also entirely possible to run just uWSGI and create another container that runs nginx and handles the static files. I chose not to because this creates a single HTTP server node. Exposing HTTP with uWSGI is not as good as with nginx, and you’ll need to handle the static files externally. Exposing uWSGI protocol externally is complicated and will require some weird configuration in the nginx frontend. This makes a totally self-contained stateless web container that has the whole functionality.
The database container is mainly a PostgreSQL database, but a couple of details have been added to its
After installing the database, we add our Django code, install it, and then run the migrations and load the configured fixtures. All of this at build time. This makes the base image to contain an empty test database and a pre-generated general database, helping for quick setup of tests. To get a fresh database, just bring down the
db container and restart it. No rebuild is needed unless there are new migrations or new fixtures.
In my experience with Django, as project grow and migrations are added, it slowly takes more and more time to run the tests if the database needs to be regenerated and fixtures to be loaded again. Even if the
--keepdb option is used from tests, sometimes a fresh start is required.
Another important detail is that this database doesn’t store data in a persistent volume, but just inside the container. This is aimed not to work as a persistent database, but to run quickly and to be able to be regenerated into a known state with ease. If you need to change the start data, change the fixtures loaded. Only put inside things you are ok losing.
As part of the setup, notice that the following happens. The database needs to be started and then another process, the Django
manage.py, loads the fixtures. Then the database is turned down and the container exists. This is one of the cases where multiple processes need to run in a container. The turn down is important, as ending the PostgreSQL process abruptly can lead to data corruption. Normally on the next startup of the database, it will be corrected, but it will take a little time. It’s better to end the step cleanly.
Logging events is critical for a successful operation in a production environment and typically is done very late in the development process. I try to introduce logging as I run my unit tests and add different information while developing, which it helps quite a lot in figuring out what’s going on on production servers.
A big part of the pain of logging is to set up properly the routing of the logs. In this case, there’s a dedicated
log container running
syslog where all the INFO and up logs from the server are directed. The collected logs are stored in a file on the container that can be easily checked.
All the requests are also labelled with a unique id, using the Django log request id middleware. The id can also be forwarded through the X-REQUEST-ID HTTP header, and it will be returned in the responses. All the logs from a request will include this ID, making easy to follow what the request has done.
When running the unit tests, the DEBUG logs are also directed to the standard output, so they’ll show as part of the
pytest run. Instead of using print in your unit test while debugging a problem, try to use logging and keep what it makes sense. This will keep a lot of useful information around when a problem arises in production.
There’s also included a Grafana container, called
metrics-graph. Note that these two containers are being pulled from their official images, instead of including a tailored
metrics container has some minimal configuration. This is because the only requirement is to expose the metrics in a Prometheus format, but creating dashboards or making more detailed work on metrics is out of the scope for this.
The good thing about Prometheus is that you can cascade it. It works by fetching the data from our web service itself (through the
/metrics URL), and at the same time it exposes the same URL with all the data it pools. This makes possible to very easily create a hierarchical structure where a container picks information about a few servers and then exposes the information to another one, that groups the data from a few Prometheus containers.
Prometheus query language and metrics aggregation are very powerful, but at the same time is very confusing initially. The included console has a few queries for interesting data in Django.
The codebase includes two subdirectories,
./vendor. The first one is to include your direct dependencies. That mean your own code, that lives in a different repo. This allows you to set a git submodule and use it as a imported module. There’s a README file to show some tips on using git submodules, as they are a little tricky.
The idea behind this is to avoid the usage of git pulling from a private repo inside a requirements file, which requires setup of authentication inside the container (adding ssh keys, git support, etc). I think is better to handle that at the same level as your general repo, and then import all the source code directly.
./vendor is a subdirectory to contain a cache of python modules in wheel format. The service
build-deps builds a container with all the stated dependencies in the requierements.txt file and precompile them (among all sub-dependencies) in convenient wheel files. Then the wheel files can be used to speed up the setup of other containers. This is optional, as the dependencies will be installed in any case, but greatly speeds up rebuilding containers or tweaking requirements.
Testing and interactive development
test runs the unit tests. It doesn’t depend on any external service and can be run in isolation.
dev-server starts the Django development web server. This reloads the code as it changes, as it mounts the local directory. It also logs the
runserver logs into standard output.
system-test independently run tests generating external HTTP requests against the
server. They are under the
./system-test subdir and are run using pytest.
Docker container can define a healthcheck to determine whether a container is properly behaving, and take action if necessary. The application includes a URL root for the heathcheck that currently is checking if the access to the database is correct. More calls to external services can be included in this view.
The healthcheck pings using curl the local nginx URL, so it also tests the routing of the request is correct.
- Though this project aims to have something production-ready, the discussion on how to do it is not trivial. Expect details to require to be changed depending on the system to bring the container to a production environment.
- Docker has some subtleties that are worth paying attention, like the difference between
run. It pays up to try to read with care the documentation and understand the different options and commands.
- Secrets management has been done through environment variables. The only real secrets in the project are the database password and the Django secret key. Secret management may depend on what system you use in production. Using docker native secret support for Docker swarm create files inside the container that can be poured into the environment with the start scripts. Something like adding to
export SECRET=`cat /run/secret/mysecret`
The Django secret key is injected as part of the build as an ARG. Check that’s consistent in all builds at docker-compose.yaml. The database password is stored in an environment variable.
- The ideal usage of containers in CI should be to work with them locally, and when pushed to the repo, trigger a chain of build container, run tests and promote the build until deployment, probably in several stages. One of the best usages of containers is to be able to set them up and not change them all along the process, which was as easy as it sounds with traditional build agents and production servers.
- All ideas welcome. Feel free to comment here or in the GitHub repo.
I happen to take a look to this old post in this blog. The post is 7 years old, but still presents an interesting problem.
“A mathematician purchased four items in a grocery store. He noticed that when he added the prices of the four items, the sum came to $7.11, and when he multiplied the prices of the four items, the product came to $7.11.”
Python 2 vs Python 3
The first interesting difference is the fact that Python3 is now quite mature, and there’s really no excuse for not using it as a default for small exercises or new projects.
The code can actually be adapted into running both in Python 2 and 3 to make comparisons:
import operator from itertools import combinations from functools import reduce from decimal import Decimal def solve(number, step, number_of_numbers): integer_range = int(number / step) all_numbers = (Decimal(i) * step for i in range(1, integer_range + 1)) multiples = 1 / (step ** number_of_numbers) correct_numbers = (i for i in all_numbers if (number * multiples % i) == 0) def check(numbers): """Check the numbers added and multiplied are the same""" return (sum(numbers) == number == reduce(operator.mul, numbers)) # only combinations are required, as order is irrelevant comb = combinations(correct_numbers, number_of_numbers) results = [p for p in comb if check(p)] return results print(solve(number=Decimal('7.11'), step=Decimal('0.01'), number_of_numbers=4))
I changed a couple of things, like the usage of filter and reduce and better usage of list comprehensions, but the code is very similar. Obtain the numbers that are multiples or the total (as they are the only possible ones to fulfil the criteria), and then try all combinations.
I removed the internal time check, using instead the UNIX one, calling it at bash:
$ time python2.7 711.py [(Decimal('1.20'), Decimal('1.25'), Decimal('1.50'), Decimal('3.16'))] real 1m26.020s user 1m22.199s sys 0m1.124s $ time python3.6 711.py [(Decimal('1.20'), Decimal('1.25'), Decimal('1.50'), Decimal('3.16'))] real 0m1.148s user 0m0.955s sys 0m0.030s
The time difference is quite staggering. 1 second vs 90. They clearly have spend time in optimise Decimal in Python3
For the second version of the code, the code is like this
def calc(): for w in range(711): for x in range(711 - w): for y in range(711 - w - x): z = 711 - x - y - w if (w * x * y * z == 711000000): print("w: %d x: %d y: %d z: %d" % (w, x, y, z)) return
wich, this time, is actually slower in python3, and slower than the first solution.
time python2.7 711_v2.py w: 120 x: 125 y: 150 z: 316 real 0m7.963s user 0m7.362s sys 0m0.291s $ time python3.6 711_v2.py w: 120 x: 125 y: 150 z: 316 real 0m13.193s user 0m11.955s sys 0m0.461s
But, there are two tricks that can be used in this case.
The first one is a simple replacement for PyPy, which indeed speeds up things.
$ time pypy 711_v2.py w: 120 x: 125 y: 150 z: 316 real 0m2.413s user 0m0.177s sys 0m0.094s
Not sure why, but the results where from ~200ms up to 4 seconds, which is quite a variability.
And the second one is to use Cython to compile the code into a C extension. This requires making two files:
# This compiles the extension automatically import pyximport; pyximport.install() from c711v3 import calc calc()
and a c711v3.pyx file, with the Cython code.
def calc(): # define the variables as C types cdef int w, x, y, z for w in range(711): for x in range(711 - w): for y in range(711 - w - x): z = 711 - x - y - w if (w * x * y * z == 711000000): print("w: %d x: %d y: %d z: %d" % (w, x, y, z)) return
This speeds up the process sensibly, to a quarter of a second:
$ time python 711_v3.py w: 120 x: 125 y: 150 z: 316 real 0m0.223s user 0m0.138s sys 0m0.070s
Not bad from 90 seconds at the start!
- Python3 has a lot of optimisations, sometimes in non-obvious places. It should be the version to go unless there are legacy requirements.
- It’s also quite simple to keep code compatible with Python2 and Python3 for easy stuff.
- I can look at code I wrote 7 years ago and find ways of improving it… Good to feel like I know more.
- PyPy is another useful tool that should be considered. It’s also getting better and betters and now it has as well Python3 compatibility. Also, my blog has been around for a while (though I don’t update it as often as I should)
- Creating C extensions with Cython is very easy when dealing with certain bottlenecks.
- And I still find joy in coding small exercises!
25 years ago, on 20th February 1991, Python 0.9.0 was released publicly… I absolutely love it and use it everyday, and it seems to be as successful as ever…
For another great 25 years! Cheers!
I’ve been playing recently an online game that has recently launched, that uses the following idea.
When a user starts a match, it spawns a process in the server that acts as the opponent, generating the actions against the user.
The game had a rough launch, with a lot of problems due it being played by a lot of people. And, IMHO, a lot of the problems can be traced to that idea.
I see it’s a seductive one. If a user generates an interaction with the service that takes time (for example, a match for this game), spawn a process/thread in the server that generates the responses in “real time“. The user then will be notified through polling or pushing the information, and can react to it. The process will receive the new information from the user and adjust the responses.
I know is seductive because I had it once, and I was very lucky to have someone around with more experience that show me how it will break under pressure. It’s not a sane architecture to scale.
Some bad ideas:
- No limit on processes, meaning the servers can be overflown by context switching. Once you have several thousand processes running on a server, you are in a bad place.
- The very definition of state on the server. You need to keep track of processes started on different servers (so no two servers perform the same job). High Availability is impossible, as losing one server will mean destroying the state on all those processes. For scalability, always look at stateless servers: read all the data, store the resulting data.
- Start up times. Each time a process starts, there’s some time to boot. This can be a problem if processes are always being started and stopped, adding overhead to the system. Even starting a thread is not free (and will require probably starting internal work like connect to the DB, read from cache, etc)
- Connections explosion. If each process needs to connect to other parts of the infrastructure (DB, logging, cache, etc) you can have a problem in number of connections.
- Process monitoring. What if a process gets stuck? A request can be cancelled easily by a web server (if a request takes more than X, kill it), but an individual process or thread can be more complicated and require specific tooling.
Alternative: Pool of workers
Generate a defined number of processes that can perform the individual actions that generates a match. Each process will get an action from a queue, execute it, and store the resulting state. Any process can produce an action for any user.
For example, if a match is a set of 20 actions, each one happening every minute, the start match request will introduce 20 actions in a queue, to be extracted at the proper time, introducing the proper delay on each action. Note that the queue needs to have a way of deliver delayed messages, not every messaging queue can (in particular, RabbitMQ doesn’t have a good support). Beanstalkd or Amazon SQS supports it.
Or, alternatively, a single action, that will end inserting the next step in the queue with the adequate delay. The action can be as simple as checking if it should change something and, if not, end.
The processes will be extracting the next action from the queue, and executing them. Note that here you minimise the time the worker is waiting for a new task to do. Each worker is active as much as possible, while any user has a pending task, ready to be executed.
The number of processes are limited, so you won’t have an explosion. You can test the system and have a good idea on the limit, when your throughput is not good enough to execute the actions within a reasonable delay, so you can stop the users from starting a new match. This is a better fallback option than allowing everyone to start one and then not giving a good experience.
A priority queue can be put in place, in that case, to inform the user: “You will be able to start your match in ~3 minutes“
Or you can add more processes/servers to increase the throughput in a predictable manner.
Alternative: Whole match pregeneration
Another alternative is actually generating a set of actions and returning them in the first go, and display them at the proper times in the client side. If any adjustment is required due the actions of the user, redo all the results from that time on.
For example, a match starts, and returns the 20 server actions to the client, which shows them to the user one each minute. In the 3rd minute, the user performs an action, which makes the server to recalculate the remainder of the match and return another 17 actions. This is a good strategy if generating actions in advance is possible and few interactions from the user are expected.
The bottom line
The main word here is stateless. It is a basic component of an scalable system, and it’s always worth it to keep in mind when designing a system to be used to more than a couple of users.