Are they picked up at a steady frequency?Up to 16 jobs among all GWT job types can be picked at once (1 runner per 16 servers).
Basically, if each job treats less images in one run, will it truly space out each image's treatment in time? Or will it have no effect because each GWT job will complete faster, with the next GWT job being picked up right after the previous one on a given server completes?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Aaron Schulz <aschulz@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Up to 16 jobs among all GWT job types can be picked at once (1 runner per 16 servers).--On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Gilles Dubuc <gilles@wikimedia.org> wrote:
CCing Aaron.what do you mean by unit? each config key in that section shows a default value to the right of it.
I want to figure out how many background job runs we end up with per minute/per hour in practice. So I meant units such as X/minute, Y/hour. I know that it's dependent on how the background jobs are configured, but this throttle figures section of the documentation doesn't help figure that out. Makes it hard for anyone to pick a figure, because it's hard to know what the number represents.
hopefully, we could instead make it clear to the uploader that if their file sizes exceed Xmb then they should set that throttle to 1 and make sure the engineers and ops are notified in advance about the upload.Guidelines sound like a good idea. If I'm following this logic correctly, though, doesn't that mean that there's also a risk that separate users might "step on each other's toes" in terms of resources, if they happen to be uploading content at the same time? Basically, if a given user sets a threshold which is a fine value for isolated use, isn't the risk that the threshold ends up being too high if more than one GWToolset user is uploading to Commons at the same time? At first I thought that the limit was on the Commons server side, but your remark seems to suggest that this is configured on the uploader's side.
job run frequency
-----------------
how often are the background jobs run?
is there a limit on how many GWToolset Mediafile background jobs are picked up at once?
i don’t know. aaron schultz would be the best person to ask. on the beta cluster it seemed to vary between 7-30 minutes, but that may have been because of testing or other activity on that server.On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:19 PM, dan entous <d_entous@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 2014, at 15:10 , Gilles Dubuc <gilles@wikimedia.org> wrote:what do you mean by unit? each config key in that section shows a default value to the right of it.
> Hi Dan,
>
> wouldn’t it be better to throttle the application/tool that generates thumbnails so that it doesn’t try to produce too many thumbnails at once?
>
> The issue is that there is no application generating thumbnails at a given rate. Thumbnails are being generated on demand when people view a thumbnail that doesn't exist. And since Special:NewFiles exists, and is visited every few seconds by bots, that means all new uploads have their thumbnails generated almost on the spot. Thus, we can't slow down that part. We have several long-term tasks to improve this issue, but they will take months to implement. Our only option at the moment is to try and avoid having GWToolset make too many massive images appear on Common's Special:NewFiles in a short period of time.
>
> Over 500 of the tiff images were greater than 50 megapixels and as a consequence Commons fails to render any thumbnails
>
> Indeed, it seems like some thumbnail generation requests timed out due to the size of these images. There are limits on the image scalers in regards to how long a thumbnailing job can take and these were going over the limit. To make matters worse, the current retry mechanism means that they were being retried 5 times, and thus using 5 times the resources. I would advise against trying to upload those enormous images for now, we should try to focus on a solution for the smaller images. It would be great if the next upload attempt leaves the images that are too large aside.
>
> I think the safest option to proceed forward is to lower the appropriate GWToolset throttles in production and then schedule a time for Fae to try the upload process again. By scheduling a specific day and time for the next attempt, we can make sure that engineers and ops have eyes on the servers to watch the load. Then if things go well, we can tweak the throttles back to higher values.
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GWToolset/Technical_Design#Throttles.2C_Limits.2C_Delays,
>
> The throttle documentation doesn't have any unit. I understand that it's "per background job run", but how often do these background jobs run?
throttle config values
> I couldn't find configuration values for these throttles on Commons. Dan, can you confirm that Commons is using the default values?
----------------------
the throttle configuration values are in the extension itself, conhttp://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FGWToolset.git/d27991ca8168e47152605d73e41b2960333b470a/includes%2FConfig.php, and can be overridden in the http://git.wikimedia.org/tree/operations%2Fmediawiki-config.git wmf-config/CommonSettings.php file in the if ( $wmgUseGWToolset ) { section.
the config values to most likely change would be $mediafile_job_throttle_default, which is currently set to 10 and $mediafile_job_throttle_max, which is currently set to 20.
at the moment, a user can set this throttle between 1-20. that means that every time a GWToolset Metadata background job is run between 1-20 GWToolset Mediafile jobs are added to the queue. we could change those values, but that would be a pity for people uploading smaller file sizes. hopefully, we could instead make it clear to the uploader that if their file sizes exceed Xmb then they should set that throttle to 1 and make sure the engineers and ops are notified in advance about the upload.
GWToolset\Config::$mediafile_job_throttle_default = new_value
GWToolset\Config::$mediafile_job_throttle_max = new_value
job run frequency
-----------------
how often are the background jobs run?
is there a limit on how many GWToolset Mediafile background jobs are picked up at once?
i don’t know. aaron schultz would be the best person to ask. on the beta cluster it seemed to vary between 7-30 minutes, but that may have been because of testing or other activity on that server.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:17 AM, dan entous <d_entous@yahoo.com> wrote:
> GWToolset already has several throttles in place, http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GWToolset/Technical_Design#Throttles.2C_Limits.2C_Delays, that limit how many background uploads are picked up with each background job run, and how many total GWToolset background jobs can exist in the entire job queue. on the beta cluster the background job seemed to vary in regards to how often it ran for GWToolset varying between 7-30. that seems like enough time for additional images to get processed in-between GWToolset images.
>
> wouldn’t it be better to throttle the application/tool that generates thumbnails so that it doesn’t try to produce too many thumbnails at once?
>
> with kind regards,
> dan
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2014, at 20:41 , Gergo Tisza <gtisza@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With no obvious immediate fix/work-around on the table from WMF ops, I
> > have proposed to re-start my uploads for this project with an
> > effective throttle by using 2 threads (this is a setting on the first
> > screen of the GWToolset. In practice, having tried a run of a couple
> > of hundred, this means that the tool is uploading 100MB sized images
> > at a rate of 2 every 5 minutes. This seems to not be causing any
> > issues.
> >
> > The issue was not directly with the uploads; there is no thumbnail rendering happening on upload, so GWToolset adding lots of large TIFFs quickly would not cause problems in itself. The upload speed was problematic because that meant GWToolset saturated pages like Special:NewFiles, and when somebody looked at such pages, *that* triggered lots of thumbnail renderings of huge TIFF files at the same time. If GWToolset is slowed down and lots of miscellaneous files are uploaded between the TIFFs, those special pages won't be problematic, but something like a gallery or category of huge TIFF files could still be.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Glamtools mailing list
> > Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
>
>
-Aaron S