Here are some examples of how to implement the leadership concept. See Implementing leadership for background information.
Sharing one-time configuration among units
Assuming your own implementations of
valid_settings, you can use the two pseudo-python snippets below:
def set_shared_settings(): if is_leader(): if not valid_settings(leader_get()): settings = create_settings() leader_set(settings) def get_shared_settings(): settings = leader_get() if not valid_settings(settings): raise WaitingForLeader() return settings
This can be used as follows:
set_shared_settingsmust be called in
leader-elected, and may be called anywhere else you like (for example, at the very beginning of
install, to cause those settings to be propagated to minions as soon as possible).
get_shared_settingsmust be called (and handled!) in
leader-settings-changed, and may also be called at any other time it’s convenient; you should always be prepared to catch WaitingForLeader and handle it appropriately (most likely by setting a “waiting” status and exiting without error, to wait for the
leader-settings-changedwhich should arrive soon).
Sharing varying configuration among units
You should be able to use the exact same constructs as above, in the same way; you just might want to call
set_shared_settings in a few more places. If you need additional synchronisation, you can use a peer relation to communicate minion’s acknowledgements back to the leader.
Peer relation membership is not guaranteed to match current reality at any given time. To be resilient in the face of your application scaling at the same time as you rebalance your application, your leader code will need to use the output of `status-get --application` to determine up-to-date membership, and wait for the set of acknowledged units in the peer relation to match that list.
Guaranteeing that a long-lived process runs on just one unit at once
hacluster charm used in our OpenStack deploys will set up corosync and pacemaker, and may well be relevant to your needs; if that’s not a good fit, read on.
Juju’s leadership concept is, by choice, relatively fine-grained, to ensure timely handover of agent-level responsibilities. That’s why
is-leader success guarantees only 30 seconds of leadership; but it’s no fun running a separate watchdog process to
juju-run is-leader every 30 seconds and kill your process when that stops working (apart from anything else, your juju-run could be blocked by other operations, so you can’t guarantee a run every 30 seconds anyway).
And we don’t plan to allow coarser-grained leadership requests. This is because if one unit could declare itself leader for a day (or even an hour) a failed leader will leave other parts of Juju blocked for that length of time, and we’re not willing to take on that cost; the 30-60 second handover delay is bad enough lready.
So, you’d basically have to implement your own protocol on top of the available primitives. As a charm author, this is unlikely to be the best use of your time – extending the
hacluster charm to cover your use case is likely to be more efficient.
Running a long-lived process on one unit at a time
This approach is not reliable. It may be good enough for some workloads, but don't use it unless you understand the forces in play and the worst possible consequences for your users...
If you start your long-lived process in
leader-elected, and stop it in
leader-settings-changed, this will usually do what you want, but is vulnerable to a number of failure modes – both because hook execution may be blocked until after the leadership lease has actually expired, and because total Juju failure could also cause the hook not to run (but leave the workload untouched).
In the future, we may implement a
leader-deposed hook, that can run with stronger timeliness guarantees; but even if we do, it’s a fundamentally unreliable approach. Seriously, if you possibly can, go with the charmed-up