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

Persistent Data Storage Between Processes #67

Open
opalmer opened this issue Jun 6, 2014 · 2 comments
Open

Persistent Data Storage Between Processes #67

opalmer opened this issue Jun 6, 2014 · 2 comments

Comments

@opalmer
Copy link
Member

opalmer commented Jun 6, 2014

As #57 mentions, we need a way to persist data between processes. Ideally we want something we can append to so we're not dumping the entire file every time. The specific goal of this issue is to make it possible to facilitate storage of the above.

Some things we should consider or already intend on storing:

  • Important events such as:
    • Error messages
    • Shutdowns
    • Restarts
    • Agent Upgrades
  • Resource, such as ram and cpu, usage history
  • Results or changes made by scheduled events
  • Any other kind of data where logging does not provide granular enough information or where we want data to be available for debugging and metrics purposes.
@opalmer opalmer added this to the 0.8.0 milestone Jun 6, 2014
@opalmer opalmer changed the title Persist Data Storage Between Processes Persistent Data Storage Between Processes Jun 6, 2014
@guidow
Copy link
Contributor

guidow commented Jun 6, 2014

I think for just making sure tasks don't end up in limbo because of an agent restart, it's sufficient if the agent includes its current list of tasks in every announce and reannounce. The master can then easily catch a discrepancy between that list and what it has in its database.
No persistent storage on the agent side is needed for that.

@opalmer opalmer removed this from the 0.8.0 milestone Jun 6, 2014
@opalmer
Copy link
Member Author

opalmer commented Jun 6, 2014

Yeah you're probably right that it will be sufficient enough, I've remove that point from this issue. I'm also moving this issue off of 0.8.0 because this is an enhancement that we don't yet have an immediate need for.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants