Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add early checks for bad configurations in lambdize pipelines #3

Open
shelbyt opened this issue Oct 11, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

Add early checks for bad configurations in lambdize pipelines #3

shelbyt opened this issue Oct 11, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@shelbyt
Copy link
Member

shelbyt commented Oct 11, 2016

Example:

If a __server.py binary runs with a bucket that does not exist (-b option). Errors are thrown _after* all the lambdas are configured.

SERVER HANDLING (1) FAIL(retrieving norun:sintel-1k-png16/00000007.png->/tmp/lambda_Sc4R9q/00000007.png from s3:
Traceback (most recent call last):

Might be better to catch bad configurations early on before we start invoking any lambdas.

@kwantam
Copy link
Member

kwantam commented Oct 11, 2016

Slightly disorganized thoughts:

One minor thing to worry about: implementing this check by having the server talk to S3 means that the server needs to be able to access the target S3 bucket (to verify its existence). In contrast, right now the server only needs permission to launch lambdas, and then the lambda role associated with the function being launched needs access to S3.

Implementing this check with a "trial balloon" worker is a possibility, but that's a big change given the way mu launches lambdas.

There are probably other ways to handle this, too.

@kwantam
Copy link
Member

kwantam commented Oct 12, 2016

One more thought: this doesn't need to be the worker'scoordinator's responsibility. Before launching a job, a separate "checking" stage can catch errors like this. This is probably the best approach because it cleanly separates two tasks that do not need to be connected.

@kwantam
Copy link
Member

kwantam commented Oct 12, 2016

(edited above: s/worker's/coordinator's/)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants