Jupyter · Advanced · Newbie question: how should a jupyter-pro config file be organised?

173
JUr/jupyter-pro·posted by dev_zhou·yesterdayTutorialLocked

Newbie question: how should a jupyter-pro config file be organised?

Some background first. Our setup is jupyter-pro plus three downstream services, seven figures of daily requests, peaking around nine in the evening.

What genuinely surprised me was the tail. The average looked great while P99 jumped by an order of magnitude past some threshold. The cause was not jupyter-pro itself but our upstream connection reuse — the load test traffic was too clean and hid the long-tail requests.

On trade-offs, my view is this: if nobody on the team owns this area long-term, do not introduce a second mechanism. With two coexistence you first have to work out which one is even in play when things break, and that costs far more than the performance you saved.

Bblog.cloudflare.comExternal link · opens in a new tab
74 comments

74 comments

M
Hhuang_ke·2 days ago

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

454
Mmike_xu·3 minutes ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

381
Sslow_query·12 minutes ago

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

372
Hhuang_ke·yesterdayedited

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

330
NnikicOP·2 hours ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

240
Kkite·just now

I just read the jupyter-pro source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

268
Sslow_query·2 days ago

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

405
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

144
Lli_ming·2 days ago

One counter-example: below jupyter-pro 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

149
NnikicOP·2 days ago

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

378
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

6
Rran_bo·2 days ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

145
Zzhou_yi·2 days ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

303
Llinlin·2 days ago

This is not a jupyter-pro problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

288
Rrase·3 minutes ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

260
Lli_mingOP·12 minutes agoedited

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

1
Aalice_dev·just now

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

10
Cchen_dev·2 hours ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

427
Wwinter·28 minutes ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

335
Rran_boMod·2 days ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

444
Zzhou_yiMod·yesterday

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

93
Aalice_dev·yesterday

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

37
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

519
Mmike_xu·2 days agoeditedLevel 6

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

67
Nnikic·12 minutes ago

This is not a jupyter-pro problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

373
Sslow_query·yesterdayedited

I just read the jupyter-pro source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

1
Aalice_dev·2 hours ago

One counter-example: below jupyter-pro 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

222
Rran_bo·2 days agoeditedLevel 6

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

106
Hhuang_ke·2 days ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

156
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

One counter-example: below jupyter-pro 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

154
Mmike_xu·28 minutes agoLevel 6

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

109
Rrase·2 days agoLevel 6

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

33
Wwinter·just now

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

1
Bbob_chen·2 days agoLevel 6

I just read the jupyter-pro source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

490
Llinlin·2 days agoLevel 6

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

116
Ttang_hao·2 days agoeditedLevel 6

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

3
Ttang_hao·28 minutes ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

223
Oops_wang·yesterday

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

84
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

134
Llinlin·2 days ago

I just read the jupyter-pro source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

74
Kkite·2 days ago

One counter-example: below jupyter-pro 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

36
Ttang_hao·28 minutes ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

9
Ttang_haoMod·2 days agoedited

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

6
Lli_ming·2 days ago

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

214
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

208
Aalice_dev·28 minutes ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

184
Nnikic·1 hour ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

181
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

167
Bbob_chen·yesterday

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

112
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

305
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

324
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

308
Llinlin·2 days ago

One counter-example: below jupyter-pro 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

270
Mmike_xuOP·28 minutes ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

220
Nnikic·just now

This is not a jupyter-pro problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

97
Hhuang_keOP·just now

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

34
Zzhou_yi·2 days ago

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

22
Hhuang_ke·2 days ago

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

90
Ddev_zhou·2 days ago

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

76
KkiteOP·2 days ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

15
Bbob_chenMod·2 days ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

72
Nnikic·5 hours ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

27
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

166
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

71
Sslow_query·2 days ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

270
Rran_bo·2 days ago

I just read the jupyter-pro source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

37
Nnikic·3 minutes ago

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

191
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

64
Mmike_xuOP·2 hours ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

3
Ddev_zhou·2 days agoedited

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

40
Rran_bo·2 days ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

191
Ttang_hao·3 minutes ago

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

15
Sslow_query·2 days ago

This is not a jupyter-pro problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

7
Llinlin·5 hours ago

This is not a jupyter-pro problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

1

This is the post detail page /en/c/jupyter-pro/post/p10. Posts and comments are generated deterministically from a seeded PRNG, so the same post always renders the same content and the link can be shared, reloaded and indexed. In production this page reads MySQL for the post, Redis for hot-post caching, and fetches the whole comment tree in a single query on the path column.

See the database schema →