We're using libspotify to update playlists that we have generated against a single account that need to be kept up to date over time. We're using a fork of the spotify-api-server to do this https://github.com/tom-martin/spotify-api-server
After sending an update to a playlist's tracks using libspotify we generally wait for the callback that we passed to sp_playlist_add_callbacks to be called before we report a success to the user. Often this callback arrives within a suitable time frame but increasingly we're getting unacceptable delays in receiving this callback. Sometimes 30 seconds, sometimes even longer, sometimes minutes, sometimes hours. It seems that generally these delays are caused by libspotify pausing for a period and not calling any callbacks until it seemingly "unfreezes" and calls all the backed up callbacks in quick succession.
Is it reasonable to use this callback as an indicator of a successful playlist update? Is there any obvious reason for these long delays?
Are you correctly handling the notify_main_thread function to keep libSpotify running?
Also, sometimes the playlist system gets backed up, goes down or otherwise takes a while to respond to requests. Our own clients keep their own cache of what the playlist tree should look like once pending transactions are successful to keep the UI snappy.
Related
I'm learning libev and I've stumbled upon this question. Assume that I want to process something as soon as possible but not now (i.e. not in the current executing function). For example I want to divide some big synchronous job into multiple pieces that will be queued so that other callbacks can fire in between. In other words I want to schedule a callback with timeout 0.
So the first idea is to use ev_timer with timeout 0. The first question is: is that efficient? Is libev capable of transforming 0 timeout timer into an efficient "call as soon as possible" job? I assume it is not.
I've been digging through libev's docs and I found other options as well:
it can artificially delay invoking the callback by using a prepare or idle watcher
So the idle watcher is probably not going to be good here because
Idle watchers trigger events when no other events of the same or higher priority are pending
Which probably is not what I want. Prepare watchers might work here. But why not check watcher? Is there any crutial difference in the context I'm talking about?
The other option these docs suggest is:
or more sneakily, by reusing an existing (stopped) watcher and pushing it into the pending queue:
ev_set_cb (watcher, callback);
ev_feed_event (EV_A_ watcher, 0);
But that would require to always have a stopped watcher. Also since I don't know a priori how many calls I want to schedule at the same time then I would have to have multiple watchers and additionally keep track of them via some kind of list and increase it when needed.
So am I on the right track? Are these all possibilities or am I missing something simple?
You may want to check out the ev_prepare watcher. That one is scheduled for execution as the last handler in the given event loop iteration. It can be used for 'Execute this task ASAP' implementations. You can create dedicated watcher for each task you want to execute, or you can implement a queue with a one prepare watcher that is started once queue contains at least one task.
Alternatively, you can implement similar mechanism using ev_idle watcher, but this time, it will be executed only if the application doesn't process any 'higher priority' watcher handlers.
I'm doing some operations that should complete under 60 seconds but there may be some rare cases where it takes longer (but will never take longer than 10 minutes). It says in the app engine docs if you catch a DeadlineExceededException you have less than a second to do operations before it permanently fails. Would this be enough time to add a task to a queue and/or do a datastore write? I assume the safest way would be to add a task async/write a datastore entity (async) at the beginning of an operation and remove it from the queue if the operation completes. The latter method would use up twice as many api calls but is it worth it?
I would suggest to use the queue as default for all operations so you won't have to implement the fallback to it if you catch a dead line exceed error. It is more clean and easier to maintain along with the fact that the user doesn't have to wait for the operation to complete. In order to achieve this you can trigger your queue with an ajax call and get the result in the background, so the user will not wait for the operation to complete. Yes it worth's it, since it can "guarantee" the window of time you might need.
The runtime environment gives the request handler a little bit more time (less than a second) after raising the exception to prepare a custom response. so it would be sufficient to add that it into task queue.
If you do not want the client to keep polling for a task queue result, I suggest you have a look at the Channel API. It will enable you to implement push notifications to the client.
At the end of your task queue, you'll just have to send a notification to the client to let him now that is task has been processed.
In Amazon Web Services, their queues allow you to post messages with a visibility delay up to 15 minutes. What if I don't want messages visible for 6 months?
I'm trying to come up with an elegant solution to the poll/push problem. I can write code to poll the SQS (or a database) every few seconds, check for messages that are ready to be visible, then move them to a "visible queue", or something like that. I wish there was a simpler, more reliable method to have messages become visible in queues far into the future without me having to worry about my polling application working perfectly all the time.
I'm not married to AWS, SQS or any of that, but I'd prefer to find a cloud-friendly solution that is stable, reliable and will trigger an event far into the future without me having to worry about checking on its status every day.
Any thoughts or alternate trees for me to explore barking up are welcome.
Thanks!
It sounds like you might be misunderstanding the visibility delay. Its purpose is to make sure that the polling application doesn't pull the same item off the queue more than once.
In other words, when the item is pulled off the queue it becomes invisible for a predetermined period of time (default is 30 seconds, max is 15 minutes) in case the polling system has a cluster of machines reading from the queue all at once.
Here's the relevant documentation:
http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/SQSDeveloperGuide/IntroductionArticle.html#AboutVT
...and the sentence in particular that relates to my comment is:
"Immediately after the component receives the message, the message is still in the queue. However, you don't want other components in the system receiving and processing the message again. Therefore, Amazon SQS blocks them with a visibility timeout, which is a period of time during which Amazon SQS prevents other consuming components from receiving and processing that message."
You should be able to use SQS for your purpose since you can leave an item in the queue for as long as you want.
7 years later, and Amazon still doesn't support the feature you need!
The two ways you can sort of get it to work are:
have messages contain a delivery target datetime in their message_attributes, and have the workers that consume the queue's messages just delete and recreate any message that is consumed before its target, with delay = max(0, min(secs_until_target_datetime, 900)) ; that would allow you to effectively schedule a message for any arbitrary future time;
or,
(slightly less frequent and costly:) similarly, if a message isn't due to be handled yet, recreate it and change its visibility timeout to be timeout = max(0, min(secs_until_target_datetime, 43200))
The disadvantage of using visibility timeout is that any read will re-trigger it.
There has been a direct AWS solution possible since 2016-12-01: AWS Step Functions
Each execution can last/idle up to one year, persists the state between transitions, and doesn't cost you any money while it waits.
Many of my handlers add a task to a task queue to do non-critical background processing. Since this processing isn't critical, if the call to taskqueue.add() throws an exception, my code just ignores it.
Tonight the task queue seemed to be down for around half an hour. Although my handlers correctly ignored the failure, they took about 5 seconds for the taskqueue.add() call to timeout and move on to processing the rest of the page. This therefore made my site run very slowly.
So, is it possible to enqueue a task asynchronously - meaning a way to add a task, without waiting to see if the addition succeeded?
Alternatively, is there a way to reduce that timeout from 5 seconds down to eg 1 second?
Thanks.
You can use the new taskqueue methods create_rpc and add_async. If you don't care if the add succeeds, simply call add_async and ignore the result. If you care, but only want to wait 1 second, set the deadline when calling create_rpc, and use the return value as the RPC argument to add_async. Call get_result to find out if the tasks were successfully added.
I think you can't do anything about it because the RPC call underneath the add method is a synchronous blocking API call.
You could try to add some check using the Capabilities API.
I am pretty sure GAE announced that TQ adds will be async with the next release (experimental feature).
I am designing an application which has the potential to hang while waiting for data from servers (either Database or internet) the problem is that I don't know how best to cope with the multitude of different places things may take time.
I am happy to display a 'loading' dialog to the user while access is happening but ideally I don't want this to flick up and disappear for short running operations.
Microsoft word appears to handle this quite nicely, as if you click a button and the operation takes a long time, after a few seconds you get a 'working..' dialog. The operation is still synchronous and you can't interrupt the operation. However if the same operation happens quickly you obviously don't get the dialog.
I am happy(ish) to devise some generic background worker thread handler and 99% of my data processing is already done in static atomic methods, but I would like to go best practice on this one if I can.
If anyone has patterns, code or suggestions I welcome them all
Cheers
I would definitely think asynchronously using a pattern with 2 events. The first "event" is that you actually got your data from wherever/whenever you had to wait for it. The second event is a delay timer. If you get your data before this timer pops, all is well and good. If not, THEN you pop up your "I'm busy" and allow them to cancel the request. Usually cancel just mean "ignore" when you finally get the response.
Microsoft word appears to handle this quite nicely, as if you click a button and the operation takes a long time, after a few seconds you get a 'working..' dialog. The operation is still synchronous and you can't interrupt the operation. However if the same operation happens quickly you obviously don't get the dialog.
If this is the behavior your want...
You could handle this, fairly easily, by wrapping a class around BackgroundWorker. Just time the start of the DoWork event, and the time to the first progress report. If a certain amount of time passes, you could show your dialog - otherwise, block (since it's a short process).
That being said, any time you're doing work that can be processed asynchronously, I'd recommend doing it that way. It's much nicer to never block your UI for a noticable interval, even if it's short. This becomes much simpler in .NET 4 (or 3.5 with Rx framework) by using the task parallel library.
Ideally you should be running any IO or non-UI processing either in a background thread or asynchronously to avoid locking up the UI.