Airflow Ops Best Practices: Observation and Monitoring

This article is an excerpt from the book, "

Introduction

In this article, we will continue to explore the application of modern “ops” practices within Apache Airflow, focusing on the observation and monitoring of your systems and DAGs after they’ve been deployed.

We’ll divide this observation into two segments – the core Airflow system and individual DAGs. Each segment will cover specific metrics and measurements you should be monitoring for alerting and potential intervention.

When we discuss monitoring in this section, we will consider two types of monitoring – active and suppressive.

In an active monitoring scenario, a process will actively check a service’s health state, recording its state and potentially taking action directly on the return value.

In a suppressive monitoring scenario, the absence of a state (or state change) is usually meaningful. In these scenarios, the monitored application sends an active schedule to a process to inform it that it is OK, usually suppressing an action (such as an alert) from occurring.

This chapter covers the following topics:

• Monitoring core Airflow components
• Monitoring your DAGs

Technical requirements

By now, we expect you to have a good understanding of Airflow and its core components, along with functional knowledge in the deployment and operation of Airflow and Airflow DAGs.

We will not be covering specific observability aggregators or telemetry tools; instead, we will focus on the activities you should be keeping an eye on. We strongly recommend that you work closely with your ops teams to understand what tools exist in your stack and how to configure them for capture and alerting your deployments.

Monitoring core Airflow components

All of the components we will discuss here are critical to ensuring a functioning Airflow deployment. Generally, all of them should be monitored with a bare minimum check of Is it on? and if a component is not, an alert should surface to your team for investigation. The easiest way to check this is to query the REST API on the web server at `/health/`; this will return a JSON object that can be parsed to determine whether components are healthy and, if not, when they were last seen.

Scheduler

This component needs to be running and working effectively in order for tasks to be scheduled for execution.

When the scheduler service is started, it also starts a `/health` endpoint that can be checked by an external process with an active monitoring approach.

The returned signal does not always indicate that the scheduler is working properly, as its state is simply indicative that the service is up and running. There are many scenarios where the scheduler may be operating but unable to schedule jobs; as a result, many deployments will include a canary dag to their deployment that has a single task, acting to suppress an external alert from going off.

Import metrics that airflow exposes for you include the following:

• scheduler.scheduler_loop_duration: This should be monitored to ensure that your scheduler is able to loop and schedule tasks for execution. As this metric increases, you will see tasks beginning to schedule more slowly, to the point where you may begin missing SLAs because tasks fail to reach a schedulable state.
• scheduler.tasks.starving: This indicates how many tasks cannot be scheduled because there are no slots available. Pools are a mechanism that Airflow uses to balance large numbers of submitted task executions versus a finite amount of execution throughput. It is likely that this number will not be zero, but being high for extended periods of time may point to an issue in how DAGs are being written to schedule work.
• scheduler.tasks.executable: This indicates how many tasks are ready for execution (i.e., queued). This number will sometimes not be zero, and that is OK, but if the number increases and stays high for extended periods of time, it indicates that you may need additional computer resources to handle the load. Look at your executor to increase the number of workers it can run.
   

Metadata database

The metadata database is used to store and track all of the metadata for your Airflow deployments’ previous DAG/task executions, along with information about your environment’s roles and permissions. Losing data from this database can interrupt normal operations and cause unintended consequences, with DAG runs being repeated.

While critical, because it is architecturally ubiquitous, the database is also least likely to encounter issues, and if it does, they are absolutely catastrophic in nature.

We generally suggest you utilize a managed service for provisioning and operating your backing database, ensuring that a disaster recovery plan for your metadata database is in place at all times.

Some active areas to monitor on your database include the following:

• Connection pool size/usage: Monitor both the connection pool size and usage over time to ensure appropriate configuration, and identify potential bottlenecks or resource contention arising from Airflow components’ concurrent connections.
• Query performance: Measure query latency to detect inefficient queries or performance issues, while monitoring query throughput to ensure effective workload handling by the database.
• Storage metrics: Monitor the disk space utilization of the metadata database to ensure that it has sufficient storage capacity. Set up alerts for low disk space conditions to prevent database outages due to storage constraints.
• Backup status: Monitor the status of database backups to ensure that they are performed regularly and successfully. Verify backup integrity and retention policies to mitigate the risk of data loss if there is a database failure.

Triggerer

The Triggerer instance manages all of the asynchronous operations of deferrable operators in a deferred state. As such, major operational concerns generally relate to ensuring that individual deferred operators don’t cause major blocking calls to the event loop. If this occurs, your deferrable tasks will not be able to check their state changes as frequently, and this will impact scheduling performance.

Import metrics that airflow exposes for you include the following:

• triggers.blocked_main_thread: The number of triggers that have blocked the main thread. This is a counter and should monotonically increase over time; pay attention to large differences between recording (or quick acceleration) counts, as it’s indicative of a larger problem.
• triggers.running: The number of triggers currently on a triggerer instance. This metric should be monitored to determine whether you need to increase the number of triggerer instances you are running. While the official documentation claims that up to tens of thousands of triggers can be on an instance, the common operational number is much lower. Tune at your discretion, but depending on the complexity of your triggers, you may need to add a new instance for every few hundred consistent triggers you run.

Executors/workers

Depending on the executor you use, you will need to monitor your executors and workers a bit differently.

The Kubernetes executor will utilize the Kubernetes API to schedule tasks for execution; as such, you should utilize the Kubernetes events and metrics servers to gather logs and metrics for your task instances. Common metrics to collect on an individual task are CPU and memory usage. This is crucial for tuning requests or mutating individual task resource requests to ensure that they execute safely.

The Celery worker has additional components and long-lived processes that you need to metricize. You should monitor an individual Celery worker’s memory and CPU utilization to ensure that it is not over- or under-provisioned, tuning allocated resources accordingly. You also need to monitor the message broker (usually Redis or RabbitMQ) to ensure that it is appropriately sized. Finally, it is critical to measure the queue length of your message broker and ensure that too much “back pressure” isn’t being created in the system. If you find that your tasks are sitting in a queued state for a long period of time and the queue length is consistently growing, it’s a sign that you should start an additional Celery worker to execute on scheduled tasks. You should also investigate using the native Celery monitoring tool Flower (https://github.com/healthchecks/healthchecks) that allows you to create suppressive alerts for your services through its rest API to manage SLAs. By pairing this third- party service with either HTTP operators or simple requests from callbacks, you can ensure that your most critical workflows achieve dynamic and resilient SLA alerting.

Performance profiling

The Airflow UI is a great tool for profiling the performance of individual DAGs:

• The Gannt chart view: This is a great visualization for understanding the amount of time spent on individual tasks and the relative order of execution. If you’re worried about bottlenecks in your workflow, start here.
• Task duration: This allows you to profile the run characteristics of tasks within your DAG over a historical period. This tool is great at helping you understand temporal patterns in execution time and finding outliers in execution. Especially if you find that a DAG slows down over time, this view can help you understand whether it is a systemic issue and which tasks might need additional development.
• Landing times: This shows the delta between task completion and the start of the DAG run. This is an un-intuitive but powerful metric, as increases in it, when paired with stable task durations in upstream tasks, can help identify whether a scheduler is under heavy load and may need tuning.
  Additional metrics that have proven to be useful (but may need to be calculated) include the following:
• Task startup time: This is an especially useful metric when operating with a Kubernetes executor. To calculate this, you will need to calculate the difference between `start_date` and `execution_date` on each task instance. This metric will especially help you identify bottlenecks outside of Airflow that may impact task run times.
• Task failure and retry counts: Monitoring the frequency of task failures and retries can help identify information about the stability and robustness of your environment. Especially if these types of failure can be linked back to patterns in time or execution, it can help debug interactions with other services.
• DAG parsing time: Monitoring the amount of time a DAG takes to parse is very important to understand scheduler load and bottlenecks. If an individual DAG takes a long time to load (either due to heavy imports or long blocking calls being executed during parsing), it can have a material impact on the timeliness of scheduling tasks.

Conclusion

In this article, we covered some essential strategies to effectively monitor both the core Airflow system and individual DAGs post-deployment. We highlighted the importance of active and suppressive monitoring techniques and provided insights into the critical metrics to track for each component, including the scheduler, metadata database, triggerer, executors/workers, and web server. Additionally, we discussed logging, alerting mechanisms, SLA monitoring, and performance profiling techniques to ensure the reliability, scalability, and efficiency of Airflow workflows. By implementing these monitoring practices and leveraging the insights gained, operators can proactively manage and optimize their Airflow deployments for optimal performance and reliability.

Author Bio

Dylan Intorf is a solutions architect and data engineer with a BS from Arizona State University in Computer Science. He has 10+ years of experience in the software and data engineering space, delivering custom tailored solutions to Tech, Financial, and Insurance industries.

Kendrick van Doorn is an engineering and business leader with a background in software development, with over 10 years of developing tech and data strategies at Fortune 100 companies. In his spare time, he enjoys taking classes at different universities and is currently an MBA candidate at Columbia University.

Dylan Storey has a B.Sc. and M.Sc. from California State University, Fresno in Biology and a Ph.D. from University of Tennessee, Knoxville in Life Sciences where he leveraged computational methods to study a variety of biological systems. He has over 15 years of experience in building, growing, and leading teams; solving problems in developing and operating data products at a variety of scales and industries.