You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@aurora.apache.org by Bharath Ravi Kumar <re...@gmail.com> on 2016/05/26 10:41:45 UTC
Port allocation in Aurora
Hi,
Based on the documentation, my understanding is that referring to named
ports in the thermos namespace (e.g. as {{thermos.ports[http]}}) will cause
aurora to request a port from mesos and make that available through the
named port. I'm assuming this does not require additional arguments to be
explicitly passed to the thermos executor. However, in the following
example, the environment variable APPLICATION_PORT is not being substituted
by an allocated port. Instead, the env var turned out to be the literal
{{thermos.ports[http]}} rather than the actual value (when inspected from
within the docker container). I tried referring to thermos.ports in the
process definition and through the docker env variable, with the same
result in either case. Is there a reason the pystachio template
substitution is failing?
supervisord = Process(
name = 'supervisord',cmdline = "env
APPLICATION_PORT={{thermos.ports[http]}} /usr/bin/supervisord -n"
)
launch_supervisord = Task(
name = 'start supervisord',
processes = [supervisord],
resources = Resources(cpu = 4, ram = 4096*MB, disk=800*MB)
)
env_var_param = Parameter(
name = "env",
value = 'APPLICATION_PORT={{thermos.ports[http]}}'
)
jobs = [
Service(
cluster = 'example',
environment = 'devel',
role = 'www-data',
name = 'hello_docker',
instances = 4,
health_check_config = curl_health_checker_config,
task = launch_supervisord,
container = Container(docker = Docker(
image = 'docker-python-demoapp',
parameters = [env_var_param]
))
)
]
On a related note, while I understand the aurora Job-Task model, for docker
images one shouldn't be required to define a task, with the entrypoint or
cmd declared in the docker image being inferred by aurora as the implicit
"task" to run. Is this already supported, or is there a plan to support
this capability in an upcoming release?
Thanks,
Bharath
Re: Port allocation in Aurora
Posted by Bharath Ravi Kumar <re...@gmail.com>.
Can someone help clarify the usage of the thermos.ports namespace please?
Thanks,
Bharath
On Thursday 26 May 2016, Bharath Ravi Kumar <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Based on the documentation, my understanding is that referring to named
> ports in the thermos namespace (e.g. as {{thermos.ports[http]}}) will cause
> aurora to request a port from mesos and make that available through the
> named port. I'm assuming this does not require additional arguments to be
> explicitly passed to the thermos executor. However, in the following
> example, the environment variable APPLICATION_PORT is not being substituted
> by an allocated port. Instead, the env var turned out to be the literal
> {{thermos.ports[http]}} rather than the actual value (when inspected from
> within the docker container). I tried referring to thermos.ports in the
> process definition and through the docker env variable, with the same
> result in either case. Is there a reason the pystachio template
> substitution is failing?
>
>
>
> supervisord = Process(
> name = 'supervisord',cmdline = "env
> APPLICATION_PORT={{thermos.ports[http]}} /usr/bin/supervisord -n"
> )
>
> launch_supervisord = Task(
> name = 'start supervisord',
> processes = [supervisord],
> resources = Resources(cpu = 4, ram = 4096*MB, disk=800*MB)
> )
>
> env_var_param = Parameter(
> name = "env",
> value = 'APPLICATION_PORT={{thermos.ports[http]}}'
> )
>
> jobs = [
> Service(
> cluster = 'example',
> environment = 'devel',
> role = 'www-data',
> name = 'hello_docker',
> instances = 4,
> health_check_config = curl_health_checker_config,
> task = launch_supervisord,
> container = Container(docker = Docker(
> image = 'docker-python-demoapp',
> parameters = [env_var_param]
> ))
> )
> ]
>
> On a related note, while I understand the aurora Job-Task model, for
> docker images one shouldn't be required to define a task, with the
> entrypoint or cmd declared in the docker image being inferred by aurora as
> the implicit "task" to run. Is this already supported, or is there a plan
> to support this capability in an upcoming release?
>
> Thanks,
> Bharath
>
Re: Port allocation in Aurora
Posted by Bharath Ravi Kumar <re...@gmail.com>.
Hi Stephan,
Thanks for responding. It's strange that I couldn't get the same config to
work within a docker container. Not sure what I'm implementing incorrectly.
I'm running the jobs through the command line. And yes, the patch you
referred to will certainly help with docker images.
Thanks,
Bharath
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Erb, Stephan <St...@blue-yonder.com>
wrote:
> I tried your example in the Aurora vagrant box. The ports were properly
> replaced and supervisor triggered with a command line such as:
>
> env APPLICATION_PORT=31610 /usr/bin/supervisord -n
>
> However, I skipped the Docker part as I don't have a usable image at hand.
>
> Are you using the Aurora command line client to perform your experiments?
>
> Best Regards,
> Stephan
>
> PS: There is a stale review request for the process-less Docker images you
> have asked about. Feel free to comment on it to re-activate the discussion:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/44745/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Bharath Ravi Kumar <re...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 26, 2016 12:41
> *To:* user@aurora.apache.org
> *Subject:* Port allocation in Aurora
>
> Hi,
>
> Based on the documentation, my understanding is that referring to named
> ports in the thermos namespace (e.g. as {{thermos.ports[http]}}) will cause
> aurora to request a port from mesos and make that available through the
> named port. I'm assuming this does not require additional arguments to be
> explicitly passed to the thermos executor. However, in the following
> example, the environment variable APPLICATION_PORT is not being substituted
> by an allocated port. Instead, the env var turned out to be the literal
> {{thermos.ports[http]}} rather than the actual value (when inspected from
> within the docker container). I tried referring to thermos.ports in the
> process definition and through the docker env variable, with the same
> result in either case. Is there a reason the pystachio template
> substitution is failing?
>
>
>
> supervisord = Process(
> name = 'supervisord',cmdline = "env
> APPLICATION_PORT={{thermos.ports[http]}} /usr/bin/supervisord -n"
> )
>
> launch_supervisord = Task(
> name = 'start supervisord',
> processes = [supervisord],
> resources = Resources(cpu = 4, ram = 4096*MB, disk=800*MB)
> )
>
> env_var_param = Parameter(
> name = "env",
> value = 'APPLICATION_PORT={{thermos.ports[http]}}'
> )
>
> jobs = [
> Service(
> cluster = 'example',
> environment = 'devel',
> role = 'www-data',
> name = 'hello_docker',
> instances = 4,
> health_check_config = curl_health_checker_config,
> task = launch_supervisord,
> container = Container(docker = Docker(
> image = 'docker-python-demoapp',
> parameters = [env_var_param]
> ))
> )
> ]
>
> On a related note, while I understand the aurora Job-Task model, for
> docker images one shouldn't be required to define a task, with the
> entrypoint or cmd declared in the docker image being inferred by aurora as
> the implicit "task" to run. Is this already supported, or is there a plan
> to support this capability in an upcoming release?
>
> Thanks,
> Bharath
>
Re: Port allocation in Aurora
Posted by "Erb, Stephan" <St...@blue-yonder.com>.
I tried your example in the Aurora vagrant box. The ports were properly replaced and supervisor triggered with a command line such as:
env APPLICATION_PORT=31610 /usr/bin/supervisord -n
However, I skipped the Docker part as I don't have a usable image at hand.
Are you using the Aurora command line client to perform your experiments?
Best Regards,
Stephan
PS: There is a stale review request for the process-less Docker images you have asked about. Feel free to comment on it to re-activate the discussion: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44745/
________________________________
From: Bharath Ravi Kumar <re...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 12:41
To: user@aurora.apache.org
Subject: Port allocation in Aurora
Hi,
Based on the documentation, my understanding is that referring to named ports in the thermos namespace (e.g. as {{thermos.ports[http]}}) will cause aurora to request a port from mesos and make that available through the named port. I'm assuming this does not require additional arguments to be explicitly passed to the thermos executor. However, in the following example, the environment variable APPLICATION_PORT is not being substituted by an allocated port. Instead, the env var turned out to be the literal {{thermos.ports[http]}} rather than the actual value (when inspected from within the docker container). I tried referring to thermos.ports in the process definition and through the docker env variable, with the same result in either case. Is there a reason the pystachio template substitution is failing?
supervisord = Process(
name = 'supervisord',cmdline = "env APPLICATION_PORT={{thermos.ports[http]}} /usr/bin/supervisord -n"
)
launch_supervisord = Task(
name = 'start supervisord',
processes = [supervisord],
resources = Resources(cpu = 4, ram = 4096*MB, disk=800*MB)
)
env_var_param = Parameter(
name = "env",
value = 'APPLICATION_PORT={{thermos.ports[http]}}'
)
jobs = [
Service(
cluster = 'example',
environment = 'devel',
role = 'www-data',
name = 'hello_docker',
instances = 4,
health_check_config = curl_health_checker_config,
task = launch_supervisord,
container = Container(docker = Docker(
image = 'docker-python-demoapp',
parameters = [env_var_param]
))
)
]
On a related note, while I understand the aurora Job-Task model, for docker images one shouldn't be required to define a task, with the entrypoint or cmd declared in the docker image being inferred by aurora as the implicit "task" to run. Is this already supported, or is there a plan to support this capability in an upcoming release?
Thanks,
Bharath