2010-2-7
| 05:43 | davidcramer | asksol: amqp as a tombstone backend, that warning, i wanted to confirm what "receive the result once" means :) |
| 05:46 | davidcramer | i set the concurrency to 4, and it shows 5 procs, kinda of odd ;) |
| 05:48 | davidcramer | yay, celery running on demo site :D |
| 05:48 | davidcramer | |
| 06:02 | davidcramer | ooo, error emails :D |
| 06:03 | davidcramer | and i suppose i should fork/commit this back, but for now ill just post here: http://celeryproject.org/reference/celery.task.... |
| 06:03 | davidcramer | kwargs/args should really be optional I think |
| 06:46 | davidcramer | in fact i will probably fork tomorrow |
| 06:46 | davidcramer | i think i have some useful additions to commit back |
| 09:05 | asksol | davidcramer: there's no easy way to see queued tasks until celerymon is done |
| 09:06 | asksol | 5 processes, one main process and 4 pool workers? |
| 09:06 | asksol | you can see what they do in ps listings if you install the "setproctitle" module |
| 09:07 | asksol | |
| 09:08 | asksol | thanks! |
| 09:08 | asksol | amqp backend means you send the result as a message, so you can only consume that result once |
| 09:09 | asksol | so if you do result.get() in two different processes, you will have a deadlock |
| 09:09 | asksol | or deadlock is probably not the right term |
| 09:09 | asksol | plan for 1.2 is to have an option to cache the result in a result backend |
| 09:10 | asksol | so send back result with amqp, e.g. store it in redis when consumed |
| 18:59 | davidcramer | I'm loving Celery :D |
| 18:59 | davidcramer | we've gotten it all moved into tasks and its working amazing |
| 18:59 | davidcramer | so any heavy task no longer happens on the web |
| 18:59 | davidcramer | should make scaling a lot easier as well |
| 19:00 | davidcramer | I'm assuming I could just have a project+celery install on any server, then one rabbitmq install for it to communicate with? Easy scaling, ya? |
| 19:00 | asksol | :) |
| 19:00 | asksol | indeed |
| 19:01 | davidcramer | cool |
| 19:01 | davidcramer | I did have one transactional issue |
| 19:01 | davidcramer | and I have had the same issue without celery, so I would say its more of a flaw in Django |
| 19:01 | davidcramer | |
| 19:02 | davidcramer | for some reason django doesnt commit the save() transaction here |
| 19:02 | davidcramer | (at the bottom) |