Persistent in-memory Python object for nginx/uwsgi server

Question

I doubt this is even possible, but here is the problem and proposed solution (the feasibility of the proposed solution is the object of this question):


I have some "global data" that needs to be available for all requests. I'm persisting this data to Riak and using Redis as a caching layer for access speed (for now...). The data is split into about 30 logical chunks, each about 8 KB.

Each request is required to read 4 of these 8KB chunks, resulting in 32KB of data read in from Redis or Riak. This is in ADDITION to any request-specific data which would also need to be read (which is quite a bit).

Assuming even 3000 requests per second (this isn't a live server so I don't have real numbers, but 3000ps is a reasonable assumption, could be more), this means 96KBps of transfer from Redis or Riak in ADDITION to the already not-insignificant other calls being made from the application logic. Also, Python is parsing the JSON of these 8KB objects 将这些8KB对象的JSON解析


All of this - especially Python having to repeatedly deserialize the data - seems like an utter waste, and a perfectly elegant solution would be to just have the , which I can refresh periodically as and when all this "static" data becomes stale. ，我可以在和当所有这些“静态”数据变得陈旧时。 Once in a few minutes (or hours), instead of 3000 times per second.

But I don't know if this is even possible. You'd realistically need an "always running" application for it to cache any data in its memory. And I know this is not the case in the nginx+uwsgi+python combination (versus something like node) - to my knowledge, unless I'm terribly mistaken. 我所知的 ，除非我非常误解。

Unfortunately this is a system I have "inherited" and therefore can't make too many changes in terms of the base technology, nor am I knowledgeable enough of how the nginx+uwsgi+python combination works in terms of starting up Python processes and persisting Python in-memory data - which means I COULD be terribly mistaken with my assumption above!


So, + references to material that could help me understand how the nginx+uwsgi+python would work in terms of starting new processes and memory allocation, would help greatly. +可以帮助我理解nginx + uwsgi + python如何在启动新进程和内存分配方面发挥作用的材料的参考将有很大帮助。

PS:

1. Have gone through some of the documentation for nginx, uwsgi etc but haven't fully understood the ramifications per my use-case yet. Hope to make some progress on that going forward now

2. If the in-memory thing COULD work out, I would chuck Redis, since I'm caching ONLY the static data I mentioned above, in it. This makes an in-process persistent in-memory Python cache even more attractive for me, reducing one moving part in the system and at least FOUR network round-trips per request.

Answer 1

What you're suggesting isn't directly feasible. Since new processes can be spun up and down outside of your control, there's no way to keep native Python data in memory.

However, there are a few ways around this.

Often, one level of key-value storage is all you need. And sometimes, having fixed-size buffers for values (which you can use directly as str / bytes / bytearray objects; anything else you need to struct in there or otherwise serialize) is all you need. In that case, uWSGI's built-in caching framework will take care of everything you need.

If you need more precise control, you can look at how the cache is implemented on top of SharedArea and do something customize. However, I wouldn't recommend that. It basically gives you the same kind of API you get with a file, and the only real advantages over just using a file are that the server will manage the file's lifetime; it works in all uWSGI-supported languages, even those that don't allow files; and it makes it easier to migrate your custom cache to a distributed (multi-computer) cache if you later need to. I don't think any of those are relevant to you.

Another way to get flat key-value storage, but without the fixed-size buffers, is with Python's stdlib anydbm . The key-value lookup is as pythonic as it gets: it looks just like a dict , except that it's backed up to an on-disk BDB (or similar) database, cached as appropriate in memory, instead of being stored in an in-memory hash table.

If you need to handle a few other simple types—anything that's blazingly fast to un/pickle, like int s—you may want to consider shelve .

If your structure is rigid enough, you can use key-value database for the top level, but access the values through a ctypes.Structure , or de/serialize with struct . But usually, if you can do that, you can also eliminate the top level, at which point your whole thing is just one big Structure or Array .

At that point, you can just use a plain file for storage—either mmap it (for ctypes ), or just open and read it (for struct ).

Or use multiprocessing 's Shared ctypes Objects to access your Structure directly out of a shared memory area.

Meanwhile, if you don't actually need all of the cache data all the time, just bits and pieces every once in a while, that's exactly what databases are for. Again, anydbm , etc. may be all you need, but if you've got complex structure, draw up an ER diagram, turn it into a set of tables, and use something like MySQL.

Answer 2

You said nothing about writing this data back, is it static? In this case, the solution is every simple, and I have no clue what is up with all the "it's not feasible" responses.

Uwsgi workers are always-running applications. So data absolutely gets persisted between requests. All you need to do is store stuff in a global variable, that is it. And remember it's per-worker, and workers do restart from time to time, so you need proper loading/invalidation strategies.

If the data is updated very rarely (rarely enough to restart the server when it does), you can save even more. Just create the objects during app construction. This way, they will be created exactly once, and then all the workers will fork off the master, and reuse the same data. Of course, it's copy-on-write, so if you update it, you will lose the memory benefits (same thing will happen if python decides to compact its memory during a gc run, so it's not super predictable).

Answer 3

我从来没有亲自尝试过，但是您可以使用uWSGI的SharedArea完成您想要做的事情吗？

Answer 4

"python in-memory data will NOT be persisted across all requests to my knowledge, unless I'm terribly mistaken."

you are mistaken.

the whole point of using uwsgi over, say, the CGI mechanism is to persist data across threads and save the overhead of initialization for each call. you must set processes = 1 in your .ini file, or, depending on how uwsgi is configured, it might launch more than 1 worker process on your behalf. log the env and look for 'wsgi.multiprocess': False and 'wsgi.multithread': True , and all uwsgi.core threads for the single worker should show the same data.

you can also see how many worker processes, and "core" threads under each, you have by using the built-in stats-server .

that's why uwsgi provides lock and unlock functions for manipulating data stores by multiple threads.

you can easily test this by adding a /status route in your app that just dumps a json representation of your global data object, and view it every so often after actions that update the store.