I am trying to figure out if Airflow can be used to express a workflow where multiple instances of the same task need to be started based on the output of a parent task. Airflow supports multiple workers, so I naively expect that Airflow can be used to orchestrate workflows involving batch processing. So far I failed to find any recipe/direction that would fit this model. What is the right way to leverage Airflow for a bath processing workflow like the one below? Assume there is a pool of Airflow workers.
Example of a workflow:
1. Start Task A to produce multiple files
2. For each file start an instance of Task B (might be another workflow)
3. Wait for all instances of Task B, then start Task C
As a hack to parallelize processing of input data in Airflow, I use a custom operator that splits the input into a predetermined number of partitions. The downstream operator gets replicated for each partition and if needed the result can be merged again. For local files, the operator runs the split command. In Kubernetes, this works nicely with the cluster autoscaling.
Related
Recently I'm developing an airflow pipeline that will be running for multi tenants. This DAG will be triggered via API, and separated by batches, which is controlled by a metadabase in SQL following some business rules.
Each batch has a batch_id in order to controll the batches, and it is passed to conf DAG via API. The batch id has the timestamp of creation combined with tenant and filetype. Example: tenant1_20221120123323 ... tenant2_20221120123323. These batches can contain two filetypes ( for example purpouses) and for each filetype a DAG is triggered (DAG1 for filetype 1 and DAG2 for filetype 2) and then from the file perspective, it is combined with the filetype in some stages tenant1_20221120123323_filetype1, tenant1_20221120123323_filetype2 ...
For illustrate this, imagine that the first dag the following pipeline process_data_on_spark >> check_new_files_on_statingstorage >> [filetype2_exists, write_new_data_to_warehouse] filetype2_exists >> read_data_from_filetype2 >> merge_filetype2_filetype2 >> write_new_data_to_warehouse . Where the filetype2_exists is a BranchPythonOperator, that verify if DAG_2 was triggered, and if it was, it will merge the resulted data form DAG2 with the DAG1 before execute write_new_data_to_warehouse.
Based on this DAG model, there will be one DAG run for each tenant. So, the DAG can have multiple DAG runs running in parallel if we trigger more than one DAG run (one per tenant). Here is my first question:
Is a good practice work with multiple DAG runs in the same DAG instead of working with Dynamic DAGs ? In this case, I would end withprocess_data_on_spark _tenant1,
process_data_on_spark _tenant2, ...process_data_on_spark _tenantN. It worth mention that the number of tenants can reach hundreads.
Now, considering that the filetype2 can or not be present in the batch, and, considering that I would use the model mentioned above (on single DAG with multiples DAG run runnning in parallel - one for each tenant). The only idead that I have for check if DAG2 was triggered for the current batch (ie., filetype2 was present in the batch) was modify the DAG_run_id to include the batch_id, combined with the filetype:
The default dag_run_id: manual__2022-11-19T00:00:00+00:00
The new dag_run_id: manual__tenant1_20221120123323_filetype2__2022-11-19T00:00:00+00:00
And from then, I would be able to query the airflow metadatabse and check if there was an dag_run_id that contains the current batch_id and the filetype2 running, and, with a sensor, wait for the dag_status be success. Then, I could run the read_data_from_filetype2 task. Otherwise, if there is no dag_run_id with batch_id and filetype2 registed in airflow metadatabase, I can follow the write_new_data_to_warehouse directly.
Here's the other question:
Is a good practice to modify dag_run_id and use it combined with airflow metadatabase to control pipelines?
Considering this scenario, It would be better to create dynamic DAGs, even if there would be result in hundeads DAGs or working with dag_run_id and airflow_metadabase and keep parallel DAG runs in one single DAG?
Or, there would be a better approach for this problem?
Thank You.
Let's assume my dag converts a large data set from CSV format to parquet. While running the dag, for some reason my dag fails, is it possible to restore the progress when I re run the dag?
It shouldn't start from scratch after I re run the dag.
Airflow dag is a collection of tasks, organized in a way that reflects their relationships and dependencies. So if you have a dag with 3 tasks: A -> B -> C, when the task C fails, you can just re run it without re running A and B, But if you re run the dag, that means you re run the task A with all the downstream tasks (B and C).
If you want to restore the progress within a task, you can do that based on your job logic but this is not related to airflow, it depends only on the techno you use and the logic you want to implement. For example, for your data, if you have multiple files in the dataset, you can create a state store on cloud storage or a database, to know the processing state for each file, and if the file is already processed, you can skip the processing and pass to the next one.
I have a DAG that, whenever there are files detected by FileSensor, generates tasks for each file to (1) move the file to a staging area, (2) trigger a separate DAG to process the file.
FileSensor -> Move(File1) -> TriggerDAG(File1) -> Done
|-> Move(File2) -> TriggerDAG(File2) -^
In the DAG definition file, the middle tasks are generated by iterating over the directory that FileSensor is watching, a bit like this:
# def generate_move_task(f: Path) -> BashOperator
# def generate_dag_trigger(f: Path) -> TriggerDagRunOperator
with dag:
for filepath in Path(WATCH_DIR).glob(*):
sensor_task >> generate_move_task(filepath) >> generate_dag_trigger(filepath)
The Move task moves the files that lead to the task generation, so the next DAG run won't have FileSensor re-trigger either Move or TriggerDAG tasks for this file. In fact, the scheduler won't generate the tasks for this file at all, since after all files go through Move, the input directory has no contents to iterate over anymore..
This gives rise to two problems:
After execution, the task logs and renderings are no longer available. The Graph View only shows the DAG as it is now (empty), not as it was at runtime. (The Tree View shows that the tasks' run and state, but clicking on the "square" and picking any details leads to an Airflow error.)
The downstream tasks can be memory-holed due to a race condition. The first task is to move the originating file to a staging area. If that takes longer than the scheduler polling period, the scheduler no longer collects the downstream TriggerDAG(File1) task, which means that task is not scheduled to be executed even though the upstream task ran successfully. It's as if the downstream task never existed.
The race condition issue is solved by changing the task sequence to Copy(File1) -> TriggerDAG(File1) -> Remove(File1), but the broader problem remains: is there a way to persist dynamically generated tasks, or at least a way to consistently access them through the Airflow interface?
While it isn't clear, i'm assuming that downstream DAG(s) that you trigger via your orchestrator DAG are NOT dynamically generated for each file (like your Move & TriggerDAG tasks); in other words, unlike your Move tasks that keep appearing and disappearing (based on files), the downstream DAGs are static and stay there always
You've already built a relatively complex workflow that does advanced stuff like generating tasks dynamically and triggering external DAGs. I think with slight modification to your DAGs structure, you can get rid of your troubles (which also are quite advanced IMO)
Relocate the Move task(s) from your upstream orchestrator DAG to the downstream (per-file) process DAG(s)
Make the upstream orchestrator DAG do two things
Sense / wait for files to appear
For each file, trigger the downstream processing DAG (which in effect you are already doing).
For the orchestrator DAG, you can do it either ways
have a single task that does file sensing + triggering downstream DAGs for each file
have two tasks (I'd prefer this)
first task senses files and when they appear, publishes their list in an XCOM
second task reads that XCOM and foreach file, triggers it's corresponding DAG
but whatever way you choose, you'll have to replicate the relevant bits of code from
FileSensor (to be able to sense file and then publish their names in XCOM) and
TriggerDagRunOperator (so as to be able to trigger multiple DAGs with single task)
here's a diagram depicting the two tasks approach
The short answer to the title question is, as of Airflow 1.10.11, no, this doesn't seem possible as stated. To render DAG/task details, the Airflow webserver always consults the DAGs and tasks as they are currently defined and collected to DagBag. If the definition changes or disappears, tough luck. The dashboard just shows the log entries in the table; it doesn't probe the logs for prior logic (nor does it seem to store much of it other than the headline).
y2k-shubham provides an excellent solution to the unspoken question of "how can I write DAGs/tasks so that the transient metadata are accessible". The subtext of his solution: convert the transient metadata into something Airflow stores per task run, but keep the tasks themselves fixed. XCom is the solution he uses here, and it does shows up in the task instance details / logs.
Will Airflow implement persistent interface access to fleeting one-time tasks whose definition disappears from the DagBag? It's possible but unlikely, for two reasons:
It would require the webserver to probe the historical logs instead of just the current DagBag when rendering the dashboard, which would require extra infrastructure to keep the web interface snappy, and could make the display very confusing.
As y2k-shubham notes in a comment to another question of mine, fleeting and changing tasks/DAGs are an Airflow anti-pattern. I'd imagine that would make this a tough sell as the next feature.
The current problem that I am facing is that I have documents in a MongoDB collection which each need to be processed and updated by tasks which need to run in an acyclic dependency graph. If a task upstream fails to process a document, then none of the dependent tasks may process that document, as that document has not been updated with the prerequisite information.
If I were to use Airflow, this leaves me with two solutions:
Trigger a DAG for each document, and pass in the document ID with --conf. The problem with this is that this is not the intended way for Airflow to be used; I would never be running a scheduled process, and based on how documents appear in the collection, I would be making 1440 Dagruns per day.
Run a DAG every period for processing all documents created in the collection for that period. This follows how Airflow is expected to work, but the problem is that if a task fails to process a single document, none of the dependent tasks may process any of the other documents. Also, if a document takes longer than other documents do to be processed by a task, those other documents are waiting on that single document to continue down the DAG.
Is there a better method than Airflow? Or is there a better way to handle this in Airflow than the two methods I currently see?
From the knowledge I gained in my attempt to answer this question, I've come to the conclusion that Airflow is just not the tool for the job.
Airflow is designed for scheduled, idempotent DAGs. A DagRun must also have a unique execution_date; this means running the same DAG at the exact same start time (in the case that we receive two documents at the same time is quite literally impossible. Of course, we can schedule the next DagRun immediately in succession, but this limitation should demonstrate that any attempt to use Airflow in this fashion will always be, to an extent, a hack.
The most viable solution I've found is to instead use Prefect, which was developed with the intention of overcoming some of the limitations of Airflow:
"Prefect assumes that flows can be run at any time, for any reason."
Prefect's equivalent of a DAG is a Flow; one key advantage of a flow that we may take advantage of is the ease of parametriziation. Then, with some threads, we're able to have a Flow run for each element in a stream. Here is an example streaming ETL pipeline:
import time
from prefect import task, Flow, Parameter
from threading import Thread
def stream():
for x in range(10):
yield x
time.sleep(1)
#task
def extract(x):
# If 'x' referenced a document, in this step we could load that document
return x
#task
def transform(x):
return x * 2
#task
def load(y):
print("Received y: {}".format(y))
with Flow("ETL") as flow:
x_param = Parameter('x')
e = extract(x_param)
t = transform(e)
l = load(t)
for x in stream():
thread = Thread(target=flow.run, kwargs={"x": x})
thread.start()
You could change trigger_rule from "all_success" to "all_done"
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/62b21d747582d9d2b7cdcc34a326a8a060e2a8dd/airflow/example_dags/example_latest_only_with_trigger.py#L40
And also could create a branch that processes failed documents with trigger_rule set to "one_failed" to move processes those failed documents somehow differently (e.g. move to a "failed" folder and send a notification)
I would be making 1440 Dagruns per day.
With a good Airflow architecture, this is quite possible.
Choking points might be
executor - use Celery Executor instead of Local Executor for example
backend database - monitor and tune as necessary (indexes, proper storage etc)
webserver - well, for thousands of dagruns, tasks etc.. perhaps only use webeserver for dev/qa environments, and not for production where you have higher rate of task/dagruns submissions. You could use cli etc instead.
Another approach is scaling out by running multiple Airflow instances - partition documents let's say to ten buckets, and assign each partition's documents to just one Airflow instance.
I'd process the heavier tasks in parallel and feed successful operations downstream. As far as I know, you can't feed successes asynchronously to downstream tasks, so you would still need to wait for every thread to finish until moving downstream but, this would still be well more acceptable than spawning 1 dag for each record, something in these lines:
Task 1: read mongo filtering by some timestamp (remember idempotence) and feed tasks (i.e. via xcom);
Task 2: do stuff in paralell via PythonOperator, or even better via K8sPod, i.e:
def thread_fun(ret):
while not job_queue.empty():
job = job_queue.get()
try:
ret.append(stuff_done(job))
except:
pass
job_queue.task_done()
return ret
# Create workers and queue
threads = []
ret = [] # a mutable object
job_queue = Queue(maxsize=0)
for thr_nr in appropriate_thread_nr:
worker = threading.Thread(
target=thread_fun,
args=([ret])
)
worker.setDaemon(True)
threads.append(worker)
# Populate queue with jobs
for row in xcom_pull(task_ids=upstream_task):
job_queue.put(row)
# Start threads
for thr in threads:
thr.start()
# Wait to finish their jobs
for thr in threads:
thr.join()
xcom_push(ret)
Task 3: Do more stuff coming from previous task, and so on
We have built a system that queries MongoDB for a list, and generates a python file per item containing one DAG (note: having each dag have its own python file helps Airflow scheduler efficiency, with it's current design) - the generator DAG runs hourly, right before the scheduled hourly run of all the generated DAGs.
I was wondering if there's a way running tasks asynchronously that will run in the background (Using Celery for example) which will never run simultaneously?
Which means, each task can run by itself simultaneously with it self but not with another tasks that interfere with the actions of the first task.
For example,
Task A: Reads from a file (can run simultaneously with it self (with other tasks that reads from files)
Task B: Writes to a file (Should not run simultaneously with the read tasks (With task A))
Essentially, what I need is a way for tasks A and B to find out if the other task is running and if it is, then delay itself and wait until it's done (probably with blocking the task queue)
Does defining a queue for the tasks solves the problem? or is it just a queue for the execution of tasks (So it will execute the 2nd task in the queue without waiting for the result of the first one)?
Is using a lock my only solution here?
If the lock solution is the only one, what's the correct way of implementing this?
I have found this:
Ensuring a task is only executed one at a time
But it uses django's cache as a lock and I'm not running my programs in a django environment so it doesn't work for me.