Summary: Ref T9252. This is now more consistent (same as the equivalent Resource state) and accurate (leases can end up in this state a bunch of ways, including by expiring).
Test Plan: `grep`, browsed around web UI.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14150
Summary: Ref T6569. If a lease is activated with an expiration date, schedule a task to try to clean it up after that time.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/drydock lease ... --until ...` to activate a lease in the near future.
- Waited for a bit.
- Saw it expire and get destroyed at the scheduled time.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6569
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14148
Summary: Ref T9252. Some leases or resources may need to remove data, tear down VMs, etc., during cleanup. After they are released, queue a "destroy" phase for performing teardown.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/drydock lease ...` to create a working copy lease.
- Used `bin/drydock release-lease` and `bin/drydock release-resource` to release the lease and then the working copy and host.
- Saw working copy and host get destroyed and cleaned up properly.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T6569, T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14144
Summary:
Ref T9252. Broadly, Drydock currently races on releasing objects from the "active" state. To reproduce this:
- Scatter some sleep()s pretty much anywhere in the release code.
- Release several times from web UI or CLI in quick succession.
Resources or leases will execute some release code twice or otherwise do inconsistent things.
(I didn't chase down a detailed reproduction scenario for this since inspection of the code makes it clear that there are no meaningful locks or mechanisms preventing this.)
Instead, add a Harbormaster-style command queue to resources and leases. When something wants to do a release, it adds a command to the queue and schedules a worker. The workers acquire a lock, then try to consume commands from the queue.
This guarantees that only one process is responsible for writes to active resource/leases.
This is the last major step to giving resources and leases a single writer during all states:
- Resource, Unsaved: AllocatorWorker
- Resource, Pending: ResourceWorker (Possible rename to "Allocated?")
- Resource, Open: This diff, ResourceUpdateWorker. (Likely rename to "Active").
- Resource, Closed/Broken: Future destruction worker. (Likely rename to "Released" / "Broken"; maybe remove "Broken").
- Resource, Destroyed: No writes.
- Lease, Unsaved: Whatever wants the lease.
- Lease, Pending: AllocatorWorker
- Lease, Acquired: LeaseWorker
- Lease, Active: This diff, LeaseUpdateWorker.
- Lease, Released/Broken: Future destruction worker (Maybe remove "Broken"?)
- Lease, Expired: No writes. (Likely rename to "Destroyed").
In most phases, we can already guarantee that there is a single writer without doing any extra work. This is more complicated in the "Active" case because the release buttons on the web UI, the release tools on the CLI, the lease requestor itself, the garbage collector, and any other release process cleaning up related objects may try to effect a release. All of these could race one another (and, in many cases, race other processes from other phases because all of these get to act immediately) as this code is currently written. Using a queue here lets us make sure there's only a single writer in this phase.
One thing which is notable is that whatever acquires a lease **can not write to it**! It is never the writer once it queues the lease for activation. It can not write to any resources, either. And, likewise, Blueprints can not write to resources while acquiring or releasing leases.
We may need to provide a mechinism so that blueprints and/or resource/lease holders get to attach some storage to resources/leases for bookkeeping. For example, a blueprint might need to keep some kind of cache on a resource to help it manage state. But I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it, and nothing else would need to write to this storage so it's technically straightforward to introduce such a mechanism if we need one.
Test Plan:
- Viewed buttons in web UI, checked enabled/disabled states.
- Clicked the buttons.
- Saw commands show up in the command queue.
- Saw some daemon stuff get scheduled.
- Ran CLI tools, saw commands get consumed and resources/leases release.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9252
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14143
Summary:
Ref T9253. For resources and leases that need to do something which takes a lot of time or requires waiting, allow them to allocate/acquire first and then activate later.
When we allocate a resource or acquire a lease, the blueprint can either activate it immediately (if all the work can happen quickly/inline) or activate it later. If the blueprint activates it later, we queue a worker to handle activating it.
Rebuild the "working copy" blueprint to work with this model: it allocates/acquires and activates in a separate step, once it is able to acquire a host.
Test Plan: With some power of imagination, brought up a bunch of working copies with `bin/drydock lease --type working-copy ...`
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14127
Summary:
See discussion in D10304. There's a lot of context there, but the general idea is:
- Blueprints should manage locks in a granular way during the actual allocation/acquisition phase.
- Optimistic "slot locks" might a pretty good primitive to make that easy to implement and reason about in most cases.
The way these locks work is that you just pick some name for the lock (like the PHID of a resource) and say that it needs to be acquired for the allocation/acquisition to work:
```
...
->needSlotLock("mylock(PHID-XYZQ-...)")
...
```
When you fire off the acquisition or allocation, it fails unless it could acquire the slot with that name. This is really simple (no explicit lock management) and a pretty good fit for most of the locking that blueprints and leases need to do.
If you need to do limit-based locks (e.g., maximum of 3 locks) you could acquire a lock like this:
```
mylock(whatever).slot(2)
```
Blueprints generally only contend with themselves, so it's normally OK for them to pick whatever strategy works best for them in naming locks.
This may not work as well if you have a huge number of slots (e.g., 100TB you want to give out in 1MB chunks), or other complex needs for locks (like you have to synchronize access to some external resource), but slot locks don't need to be the only mechanism that blueprints use. If they run into a problem that slot locks aren't a good fit for, they can use something else instead. For now, slot locks seem like a good fit for the problems we currently face and most of the problems I anticipate facing.
(The release workflows have other race issues which I'm not addressing here. They work fine if nothing races, but aren't race-safe.)
Test Plan:
To create a race where the same binding is allocated as a resource twice:
- Add `sleep(10)` near the beginning of `allocateResource()`, after the free bindings are loaded but before resources are allocated.
- (Comment out slot lock acquisition if you have this patch.)
- Run `bin/drydock lease ...` in two windows, within 10 seconds of one another.
This will reliably double-allocate the binding because both blueprints see a view of the world where the binding is free.
To verify the lock works, un-comment it (or apply this patch) and run the same test again. Now, the lock fails in one process and only one resource is allocated.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14118
Summary:
Ref T9253. Broadly, this realigns Allocator behavior to be more consistent and straightforward and amenable to intended future changes.
This attempts to make language more consistent: resources are "allocated" and leases are "acquired".
This prepares for (but does not implement) optimistic "slot locking", as discussed in D10304. Although I suspect some blueprints will need to perform other locking eventually, this does feel like a good fit for most of the locking blueprints need to do.
In particular, I've made the blueprint operations on `$resource` and `$lease` objects more purposeful: they need to invoke an activator on the appropriate object to be implemented correctly. Before they invoke this activator method, they configure the object. In a future diff, this configuration will include specifying slot locks that the lease or resource must acquire. So the API will be something like:
$lease
->setActivateWhenAcquired(true)
->needSlotLock('x')
->needSlotLock('y')
->acquireOnResource($resource);
In the common case where slot locks are a good fit, I think this should make correct blueprint implementation very straightforward.
This prepares for (but does not implement) resources and leases which need significant setup steps. I've basically carved out two modes:
- The "activate immediately" mode, as here, immediately opens the resource or activates the lease. This is appropriate if little or no setup is required. I expect many leases to operate in this mode, although I expect many resources will operate in the other mode.
- The "allocate now, activate later" mode, which is not fully implemented yet. This will queue setup workers when the allocator exits. Overall, this will work very similarly to Harbormaster.
- This new structure makes it acceptable for blueprints to sleep as long as they want during resource allocation and lease acquisition, so long as they are not waiting on anything which needs to be completed by the queue. Putting a `sleep(15 * 60)` in your EC2Blueprint to wait for EC2 to bring a machine up will perform worse than using delayed activation, but won't deadlock the queue or block any locks.
Overall, this flow is more similar to Harbormaster's flow. Having consistency between Harbormaster's model and Drydock's model is good, and I think Harbormaster's model is also simply much better than Drydock's (what exists today in Drydock was implemented a long time ago, and we had more support and infrastructure by the time Harbormaster was implemented, as well as a more clearly defined problem).
The particular strength of Harbormaster is that objects always (or almost always, at least) have a single, clearly defined writer. Ensuring objects have only one writer prevents races and makes reasoning about everything easier.
Drydock does not currently have a clearly defined single writer, but this moves us in that direction. We'll probably need more primitives eventually to flesh this out, like Harbormaster's command queue for messaging objects which you can't write to.
This blueprint was originally implemented in D13843. This makes a few changes to the blueprint itself:
- A bunch of code from that (e.g., interfaces) doesn't exist yet.
- I let the blueprint have multiple services. This simplifies the code a little and seems like it costs us nothing.
This also removes `bin/drydock create-resource`, which no longer makes sense to expose. It won't get locking, leasing, etc., correct, and can not be made correct.
NOTE: This technically works but doesn't do anything useful yet.
Test Plan: Used `bin/drydock lease --type host` to acquire leases against these blueprints.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Subscribers: Mnkras
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14117
Summary:
Ref T9253. The Drydock allocator is very pseudocodey right now. Particularly, it was written before Blueprints were concrete.
Reorganize it to make its responsibilities and error handling behaviors more clear.
In particular, the Allocator does not manage locks. It's primarily trying to reject allocations which can not possibly work. Blueprints are responsible for locks. See some discussion in D10304.
NOTE: This code probably doesn't work as written, see future diffs.
Test Plan: See future diffs.
Reviewers: hach-que, chad
Reviewed By: hach-que, chad
Subscribers: cburroughs
Maniphest Tasks: T9253
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14114
Summary:
Ref T2015. This increases the Drydock worker lease time to 24 hours. We noticed that some leases took longer than 2 hours when leasing from AWS (the actual resource was successfully leased at around 2 hours, 19 minutes).
24 hours should be plenty enough time to actually lease anything from EC2 (or any other leases during builds).
Test Plan: Have not yet tested this.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T2015
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10544
Summary: Ran `arc lint --apply-patches --everything` over rP, mainly to change double quotes to single quotes where appropriate. These changes also validate that the `ArcanistXHPASTLinter::LINT_DOUBLE_QUOTE` rule is working as expected.
Test Plan: Eyeballed it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9431
Summary:
Ref T2015. Moves a bunch of raw object loads into modern policy-aware queries.
Also straightens out the Log and Lease policies a little bit: there are legitimate states where these objects are not attached to a resource (particularly, while a lease is being acquired). Handle these more gracefully.
Test Plan: Lint / browsed stuff.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2015
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7836
Summary:
//(this diff used to be about applying policies to blueprints)//
This restructures Drydock so that blueprints are instances in the DB, with an associated implementation class. Thus resources now have a `blueprintPHID` instead of `blueprintClass` and DrydockBlueprint becomes a DAO. The old DrydockBlueprint is renamed to DrydockBlueprintImplementation, and the DrydockBlueprint DAO has a `blueprintClass` column on it.
This now just implements CAN_VIEW and CAN_EDIT policies for blueprints, although they are probably not enforced in all of the places they could be.
Test Plan: Used the `create-resource` and `lease` commands. Closed resources and leases in the UI. Clicked around the new and old lists to make sure everything is still working.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4111, T2015
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7638
Summary:
Ref T2852. Add a `log()` method to `PhabricatorWorker` to make debugging easier.
I renamed the similar Drydock-specific method.
Test Plan:
Used logging in a future revision:
...
<<< [36] <http> 211,704 us
Updating main task.
>>> [37] <http> https://app.asana.com/api/1.0/tasks/6153776820388
...
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2852
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6296
Summary:
Right now, Drydock gives out multiple leases to the same working copy and gives out leases to working copies with repository "P" in them when the user requested some other repository.
Add two callbacks:
- `canAllocateLease()` - allows a blueprint to reject a lease on a resource because of a fundamental incompatibility, like "it's a working copy with Phabricator in it, but the lease wants a working copy with Javelin in it".
- `shouldAllocateLease()` - allows a blueprint to reject a lease on a resource because of resource limits, like "only one active lease can own a working copy at a time".
Also cleaned up various other things.
Test Plan:
After implementing the callbacks, Drydock has the correct behavior:
- It gives multiple leases on `localhost`, but only one lease per working-copy resource.
- It does not grant leases on resources with repository X to requests for repository Y.
Ran `bin/drydock lease --type working-copy --repositoryID 12` and similar repeatedly and verified results in the web console.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2015
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D4166
Summary:
- Remove EC2, RemoteHost, Application, etc., blueprints for now. They're very proof-of-concept and Blueprints are getting API changes I don't want to bother propagating for now. Leave the abstract base class and the LocalHost blueprint. I'll restore the more complicated ones once better foundations are in place.
- Remove the Allocate controller from the web UI. The original vision here was that you'd manually allocate resources in some cases, but it no longer makes sense to do so as all allocations come from leases now. This simplifies allocations and makes the rule for when we can clean up resources clear-cut (if a resource has no more active leases, it can be cleaned up). Instead, we'll build resources like the localhost and remote hosts lazily, when leases come in for them.
- Add some configuration to manage the localhost blueprint.
- Refactor `canAllocateResources()` into `isEnabled()` (for config checks) and `canAllocateMoreResources()` (for quota checks, e.g. too many resources are allocated already).
- Juggle some signatures to align better with a world where blueprints generally do allocate.
- Add some more logging and error handling.
- Fix an issue with log ordering.
Test Plan: Allocated some localhost leases.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2015
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D3902
Summary:
This commit doesn't change license of any file. It just makes the license implicit (inherited from LICENSE file in the root directory).
We are removing the headers for these reasons:
- It wastes space in editors, less code is visible in editor upon opening a file.
- It brings noise to diff of the first change of any file every year.
- It confuses Git file copy detection when creating small files.
- We don't have an explicit license header in other files (JS, CSS, images, documentation).
- Using license header in every file is not obligatory: http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new.
This change is approved by Alma Chao (Lead Open Source and IP Counsel at Facebook).
Test Plan: Verified that the license survived only in LICENSE file and that it didn't modify externals.
Reviewers: epriestley, davidrecordon
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: aran, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T2035
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D3886
Summary:
Tightens up a bunch of stuff:
- In `drydock lease`, pull and print logs so the user can see what's happening.
- Remove `DrydockAllocator`, which was a dumb class that did nothing. Move the tiny amount of logic it held directly to `DrydockLease`.
- Move `resourceType` from worker task metadata directly to `DrydockLease`. Other things (like the web UI) can be more informative with this information available.
- Pass leases to `allocateResource()`. We always allocate in response to a lease activation request, and the lease often has vital information. This also allows us to associate logs with leases correctly.
Test Plan: Ran `drydock lease --type host` and saw it perform a host allocation in EC2.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T2015
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D3870
