Jupyter · Advanced · This jupyter-pro bug hid for three years before anyone reported it

94
JUr/jupyter-pro·posted by li_ming·3 hours agoExperience

This jupyter-pro bug hid for three years before anyone reported it

Short version: jupyter-pro needs almost no tuning at small and medium scale — the point where it starts to hurt is much further out than most people assume. Full measurements below.

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.

# Load test: do not jump straight to the max concurrency.
# Ramp it up, otherwise you miss the knee.
for c in 50 100 200 400 800; do
  wrk -t8 -c$c -d60s --latency http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/feed
  sleep 20
done

Worth noting: the official docs do cover this, just in a very inconspicuous spot. I only found it reading the source comments, where the author explains the reasoning — roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

The first thing was to collapse the variables. We were changing config and upgrading the version at the same time, and afterwards nobody could say which change caused what. We rolled back to moving one variable at a time, re-ran three times, and only then did the curve settle. Tedious, but not skippable.

39 comments

39 comments

M
KkiteMod·2 days ago

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

458
Sswoole_lee·just now

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.

427
Oops_wang·5 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.

95
Llinlin·28 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.

428
Zzhu_zongMod·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.

172
Zzhu_zong·just nowedited

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.

44
RraseOP·1 hour 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".

36
Zzhou_yi·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.

452
Ddev_zhou·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.

346
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

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

262
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

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

18
Wwinter·2 days agoedited

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

18
Bbob_chen·1 hour ago

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

127
Cchen_dev·28 minutes agoedited

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

1
Llinlin·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.

401
Zzhou_yi·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.

22
Nnikic·1 hour 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.

392
Mmike_xuMod·5 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.

353
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.

326
Cchen_dev·1 hour ago

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

260
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

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

24
Kkite·2 days agoedited

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.

254
Sslow_query·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".

232
Nnikic·just now

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

152
Kkernel_panic·just now

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.

48
Rrase·1 hour 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.

31
NnikicOP·28 minutes 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".

361
RraseOP·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.

49
Sswoole_lee·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.

12
Rran_bo·12 minutes 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.

11
Cchen_devMod·12 minutes 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.

9
Kkite·1 hour ago

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

20
Kkite·2 days ago

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

408
Lli_ming·2 days ago

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

13
Zzhou_yiMod·2 hours ago

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

3
Aalice_dev·2 days agoedited

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.

70
Nnikic·just now

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.

1
Oops_wangMod·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.

5
Rran_bo·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.

3

This is the post detail page /en/c/jupyter-pro/post/p7. 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 →