Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Worker implementation selection #63

Closed
yurynix opened this issue Jun 13, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #64
Closed

Worker implementation selection #63

yurynix opened this issue Jun 13, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #64

Comments

@yurynix
Copy link
Contributor

yurynix commented Jun 13, 2023

Hi 👋
Thank you for the great library! 🙏

When moving from 1.x to 2.x, the implementation of the workers was switched from process (child_process) to threads (worker_threads), which is great for many workloads, however, for some workloads, processes are preferred.

Specifically what bothers me is workloads that do process.chdir() which is not supported inside worker_threads.

Would you be open to a new option in WorkerNodesOptions -> .workerType which can get thread (default) or process,
that will control the underlying implementation?

I don't think it's a big code change, however one downside is that WorkerNodesOptions.resourceLimits is only going to be supported in worker_threads.

What do you think? 🙃

@yurynix
Copy link
Contributor Author

yurynix commented Jun 15, 2023

@bgalek what are your thoughts on this? 🙃

@bgalek
Copy link
Member

bgalek commented Jun 15, 2023

@yurynix if we leave worker_threads as a default I'm ok with providing option to change thread to process ;)

@yurynix
Copy link
Contributor Author

yurynix commented Jun 15, 2023

Cool, so I'll draft a PR next week 🙏

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants