Hi, pardon if this is a duplicate mail, I forgot to click the subscription link the first time around. I''ve been using backgroundrb for a while now (older version) and I''ve had so many headaches because of it that I began looking for a replacement technology. And then I saw the new and shiny backgroundrb website, looking good! Initially I used the version maintained by skaar, but had some long forgotten issues. On Ezras recommendation, I changed to the latest version he did (a downgrade so to speak), and this has been okay, but we see some connectivity issues with that once it''s been running for a while, eg. druby://10.1.65.87:22222 - #<Errno::ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused - connect(2)> So, I''m here to ask, what''s the state of backgroundrb 1.0.3? How much has changed since Herman took over? Is it ready for production and rock solid? Or should I go look for something else? Thanks, Morten
In my experience, I have found the 1.0.3 version more stable then the older one.. Admittedly I am not running lots of workloads through it, but it has been easier to setup and to code against... Eric On Mar 21, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Morten Primdahl wrote:> > Hi, pardon if this is a duplicate mail, I forgot to click the > subscription link the first time around. > > I''ve been using backgroundrb for a while now (older version) and I''ve > had so many headaches because of it that I began looking for a > replacement technology. And then I saw the new and shiny backgroundrb > website, looking good! > > Initially I used the version maintained by skaar, but had some long > forgotten issues. On Ezras recommendation, I changed to the latest > version he did (a downgrade so to speak), and this has been okay, but > we see some connectivity issues with that once it''s been running for a > while, eg. druby://10.1.65.87:22222 - #<Errno::ECONNREFUSED: > Connection refused - connect(2)> > > So, I''m here to ask, what''s the state of backgroundrb 1.0.3? How much > has changed since Herman took over? Is it ready for production and > rock solid? Or should I go look for something else? > > Thanks, > > Morten > > > _______________________________________________ > Backgroundrb-devel mailing list > Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel----------------------------------------------------- Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | http://www.opensourceconnections.com
I too have been fine with the 1.0.3 stuff. New dependencies...but, no big deal. I''m curious though...what else is there? If you were to go looking what would you find? On Mar 21, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Eric Pugh wrote:> In my experience, I have found the 1.0.3 version more stable then the > older one.. Admittedly I am not running lots of workloads through it, > but it has been easier to setup and to code against... > > Eric > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Morten Primdahl wrote: > >> >> Hi, pardon if this is a duplicate mail, I forgot to click the >> subscription link the first time around. >> >> I''ve been using backgroundrb for a while now (older version) and I''ve >> had so many headaches because of it that I began looking for a >> replacement technology. And then I saw the new and shiny backgroundrb >> website, looking good! >> >> Initially I used the version maintained by skaar, but had some long >> forgotten issues. On Ezras recommendation, I changed to the latest >> version he did (a downgrade so to speak), and this has been okay, but >> we see some connectivity issues with that once it''s been running >> for a >> while, eg. druby://10.1.65.87:22222 - #<Errno::ECONNREFUSED: >> Connection refused - connect(2)> >> >> So, I''m here to ask, what''s the state of backgroundrb 1.0.3? How much >> has changed since Herman took over? Is it ready for production and >> rock solid? Or should I go look for something else? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Morten >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Backgroundrb-devel mailing list >> Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | http://www.opensourceconnections.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Backgroundrb-devel mailing list > Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel
On Mar 21, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Kit Plummer wrote:> I too have been fine with the 1.0.3 stuff. New dependencies...but, no > big deal. > > I''m curious though...what else is there? If you were to go looking > what would you find?Then I''d be looking for a queuing mechanism of sorts, inspiration here: http://nubyonrails.com/articles/about-this-blog-beanstalk-messaging-queue And a question, the API has changed some since the version I use, and I have a little problems getting my most basic example to work in the console - when I attempt to read the result, I get nil. Can anyone spot what may be wrong: class ReverseWorker < BackgrounDRb::MetaWorker set_worker_name :reverse_worker def create(args = nil) # this method is called, when worker is loaded for the first time end def reverse(arg = ''missing'') @result = arg.reverse end def result @result end end flake:zendesk morten$ script/console Loading development environment (Rails 2.0.2) >> key = MiddleMan.new_worker(:worker => :reverse_worker, :job_key => ''123'') {:type=>:start_worker, :worker=>:reverse_worker, :job_key=>"123"} => "123" >> MiddleMan.worker(:reverse_worker, key).reverse(''Hello'') {:type = > :do_work , :data = > "Hello ", :worker=>:reverse_worker, :worker_method=>:reverse, :job_key=>"123"} => nil >> MiddleMan.worker(:reverse_worker, key).result {:type = > :do_work , :worker=>:reverse_worker, :worker_method=>:result, :job_key=>"123"} => nil Odd isn''t it? The debug log: 00000006: type:start_worker: worker:reverse_worker: job_key123 {:type=>:start_worker, :job_key=>"123", :worker=>:reverse_worker} 00000009{ : type: do_work: data" Hello: worker:reverse_worker:worker_method: reverse: job_key123 {:type = > :do_work , :job_key = > "123 ", :worker_method=>:reverse, :worker=>:reverse_worker, :data=>"Hello"} 00000008{ : type: do_work: worker:reverse_worker:worker_method: result : job_key123 {:type = > :do_work , :job_key=>"123", :worker_method=>:result, :worker=>:reverse_worker} Br, Morten
Hi, I found that instead of using a custom "result" method, I can get the result data from the worker by using register_status and ask_status - but is this how it''s meant to work? The status methods are not "reserved" (semantically) for progress notifications? It''s not possible to retrieve data from a worker by a custom method, or is my approach incorrect? Thanks. Morten On Mar 21, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Morten Primdahl wrote:> > On Mar 21, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Kit Plummer wrote: >> I too have been fine with the 1.0.3 stuff. New dependencies...but, >> no >> big deal. >> >> I''m curious though...what else is there? If you were to go looking >> what would you find? > > Then I''d be looking for a queuing mechanism of sorts, inspiration > here: > http://nubyonrails.com/articles/about-this-blog-beanstalk-messaging-queue > > And a question, the API has changed some since the version I use, and > I have a little problems getting my most basic example to work in the > console - when I attempt to read the result, I get nil. Can anyone > spot what may be wrong: > > class ReverseWorker < BackgrounDRb::MetaWorker > set_worker_name :reverse_worker > def create(args = nil) > # this method is called, when worker is loaded for the first time > end > > def reverse(arg = ''missing'') > @result = arg.reverse > end > > def result > @result > end > end > > flake:zendesk morten$ script/console > Loading development environment (Rails 2.0.2) >>> key = MiddleMan.new_worker(:worker => :reverse_worker, :job_key => > ''123'') > {:type=>:start_worker, :worker=>:reverse_worker, :job_key=>"123"} > > => "123" >>> MiddleMan.worker(:reverse_worker, key).reverse(''Hello'') > {:type > >> > :do_work > , :data > >> > "Hello > ", :worker > =>:reverse_worker, :worker_method=>:reverse, :job_key=>"123"} > > => nil >>> MiddleMan.worker(:reverse_worker, key).result > {:type > >> > :do_work > , :worker=>:reverse_worker, :worker_method=>:result, :job_key=>"123"} > > => nil > > Odd isn''t it? The debug log: > > 00000006: type:start_worker: > worker:reverse_worker: > job_key123 > {:type=>:start_worker, :job_key=>"123", :worker=>:reverse_worker} > 00000009{ > : type: > do_work: data" > Hello: > worker:reverse_worker:worker_method: > reverse: > job_key123 > {:type > >> > :do_work > , :job_key > >> > "123 > ", :worker_method=>:reverse, :worker=>:reverse_worker, :data=>"Hello"} > 00000008{ : type: > do_work: > > worker:reverse_worker:worker_method: > result > : > job_key123 > {:type > >> > :do_work > , :job_key=>"123", :worker_method=>:result, :worker=>:reverse_worker} > > Br, > > Morten > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Backgroundrb-devel mailing list > Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel
In my searches, most of what I''ve come across would be some kind of messaging solution, like ActiveMQ or JMS. Actually tried to get this working once but it was unnecessarily complicated (and high in overhead) compared to even a really old backgroundrb. New backgroundrb is great, once you adjust to the new API. After one small misunderstanding I had things up and running on the new one in a day. Not one crash yet, and so many more options for how you model your workers... Great job, guys! -- Steve> From: Kit Plummer <kitplummer at gmail.com> > Date: March 21, 2008 4:28:05 PM EDT > To: backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Backgroundrb-devel] State of backgroundrb (dupe?) > > > I too have been fine with the 1.0.3 stuff. New dependencies...but, > no big deal. > > I''m curious though...what else is there? If you were to go looking > what would you find?