0

I am developing a NodeJS application wherein a user can schedule a job (CPU intensive) to be run. I am keeping the event loop free and want to run the job in a separate process. When the user submits the job, I make an entry in the database (PostgreSQL), with the timestamp along with some other information. The processes should be run in the FCFS order. Upon some research on stackoverflow, I found people suggesting Bulljs (with Redis), Kue, RabbitMQ, etc. as a solution. My doubt is why do I need to use those when I can just poll the database and get the oldest job. I don't intend to poll the db at a regular interval but instead only when the current job is done executing.

My application does not receive too many simultaneous requests. And also users do not wait for the job to be completed. Instead they logout and are notified through mail when the job is done. What can be the potential drawbacks of using child_process (spawn/exec) module as a solution?

Sharan V K
  • 171
  • 1
  • 7

1 Answers1

0

My doubt is why do I need to use those when I can just poll the database and get the oldest job.

How are you planning on handling failures? What if Node.js crashes with a job mid-progress, would that effect your users? Would you then retry a failed job? How do you support back-off? How many attempts before it should completely stop?

These questions are answered in the Bull implementation, RabbitMQ and almost every solution you'll find for your current challenge.

From what I noticed (child_process), it's a lower level implementation (low-level in Node.js), meaning that a lot of the functionality you'll typically require (failover/backoff) isn't included. You'll have to implement this.

That's where it usually becomes more trouble than it's worth, although admittedly managing, monitoring and deploying a Redis server may not be the most optimal solution either.

Have you considered a different approach, how would a periodic CRON job work? (For example).

The challenge with such a system is usually how you plan to handle failure and what impact failure has on your application and end-users.

I will say, in the defense of Bull, for a CPU intensive task I prefer to have a separated instance of the worker process, I can then re-deploy that single process as many times as I need. This keeps my back-end code separated and generally easier to manage, whilst also giving me the ability to easily scale up/down when required.

EDIT: I mention "more trouble than it's worth", if you're looking to really learn how technology like this is developed, go with child process and build your own abstractions on-top, if it's something you need today, use Bull, RabbitMQ or any purpose-built alternative.

Isolated
  • 2,167
  • 14
  • 14