<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>We are not alone! At last, someone has decided to address the misery of the dreaded queue. </div><div><br></div><div>Thank you</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium">Simon Morley</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium">Big Chief | PolkaSpots Supafly Wi-Fi</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium">I'm doing it with Cucumber Tony. Are you?</div></div><div><br>On 16 Mar 2015, at 09:18, Najaf Ali <<a href="mailto:ali@happybearsoftware.com">ali@happybearsoftware.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Hi all,<div><br></div><div>I'm trying to identify some general good practices (based on real-life problems) when it comes to working with async job queues (think DJ, Resque and Sidekiq).</div><div><br></div><div>So far I've been doing this by collecting stories of how they've failed catastrophically (e.g. sending thousands of spurious SMS's to your customers) and seeing if I can identify any common themes based on those.</div><div><br></div><div>Here are some examples of what I mean (anonymised to protect the innocent):</div><div><br></div><div>* Having a (e.g. hourly) cron job that checks if a job has been done and then enqueues the job if it hasn't. It knows this because the successfully completed job would leave some sort of evidence of completion in e.g. the database. If your workers go down for a day, this means the same job would be enqueued over and over again superfluously.</div><div><br></div><div>* Sending multiple emails (hundreds) in a single job lead to a problem where if just one of those emails (say the 24th) fails to be delivered, the entire job fails and emails 1-23 get sent again when your worker retries it again and again and again.</div><div><br></div><div>* With the workers/app running the same codebase but on different virtual servers, deploying only to the application server (and not the server running the workers) resulted in the app servers queueing jobs that the workers didn't know how to process. </div><div><br></div><div>It would be great to hear what sort of issues/incidents you've come across while using async job queues like the above. I don't think I have enough examples to make any generalisations about the "right way" to use them yet, so more interested in just things that went wrong and how you fixed them at the moment.</div><div><br></div><div>Feel free to reply off-list if you'd rather not share with everyone, I intend to put the findings together in a blog post with a few guesses as to how to avoid these sorts of problems.</div><div><br></div><div>All the best,</div><div><br></div><div>-Ali</div><span></span></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Chat mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Chat@lists.lrug.org">Chat@lists.lrug.org</a></span><br><span>Archives: <a href="http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org">http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org</a></span><br><span>Manage your subscription: <a href="http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org">http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org</a></span><br><span>List info: <a href="http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org">http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>