02 March 2018 1 comment Docker
tl;dr; Watch out for .dockerignore causing no such file or directory when building Docker images
First I tried to use docker-compose:
▶ docker-compose build ui
Building ui
Step 1/8 : FROM node:9
---> 29831ba76d93
Step 2/8 : ADD ui/package.json /package.json
ERROR: Service 'ui' failed to build: ADD failed: stat /var/lib/docker/tmp/docker-builder079614651/ui/package.json: no such file or directory
What the heck? Did I typo the name in the ui/Dockerfile?
The docker-compose.yml directive for this was:
yaml
ui:
build:
context: .
dockerfile: ui/Dockerfile
environment:
- NODE_ENV=development
ports:
- "3000:3000"
- "35729:35729"
volumes:
- $PWD/ui:/app
command: start
I don't know if it's the awesomest way to do docker-compose but I did copy this exactly from a different (working!) project. That other project called the web stuff frontend instead of ui in this project.
The Dockerfile looked like this:
FROM node:9
ADD ./ui/package.json ./
ADD ./ui/package-lock.json ./
RUN npm install
EXPOSE 3000
EXPOSE 35729
CMD [ "npm", "start" ]
Let's try without docker-compose. Or rather, do with docker what docker-compose does for me automatically.
▶ docker build ui -f ui/Dockerfile
Sending build context to Docker daemon 158.2MB
Step 1/8 : FROM node:9
---> 29831ba76d93
Step 2/8 : ADD ui/package.json /package.json
ADD failed: stat /var/lib/docker/tmp/docker-builder001494654/ui/package.json: no such file or directory
So I thought I perhaps have misunderstood how relative paths worked. I tried EVERYTHING!
I tried changing to docker build . -f ui/Dockerfile. No luck.
I tried all sorts of combinations of this with also changing the line to ADD ui/package.json ... or ADD /ui/package.json ... or ADD ./package.json ... or ADD package.json .... Nothing worked.
Finally I got it to work by doing
▶ cd ui
▶ docker build . -f Dockerfile
but for that to work I had to remove all references of the directory name ui in the Dockerfile. Nice, but this is not going to work in docker-compose.yml since that starts outside the directory ./ui/.
Sigh!
So then I learned about contexts in docker. Well, I skimmed the docs rapidly. To keep things clean it's a good idea to do things within the directory that matters. So I made this change in the docker-compose.yml:
ui:
build:
context: ui
dockerfile: Dockerfile
environment:
- NODE_ENV=development
ports:
- "3000:3000"
- "35729:35729"
volumes:
- $PWD/ui:/app
command: start
(Note the build.context: and build.dockerfile:)
Still doesn't work! 😫 Still various variations of no such file or directory.
The solution
Turns out, in projectroot/.dockerignore it had ui/ as a line entry!!!
I believe this project used to do some of the Python stuff with Docker and the React web app was done "locally" on the host. And since the ui/node_modules directory is so huge someone decided it was smart of avoid Docker mounting that.
Now the .dockerignore has .ui/node_modules and now everything works. I can build it with plain docker and docker-compose from outside the directory.
Perhaps I should have spent the time I spent writing this blog post to instead file a structured GitHub issue on Docker itself somewhere. I.e. that it should have warned be better. Any takers?
11 January 2018 0 comments Docker, MacOSX, Django, Web development
I have a side-project that is basically a React frontend, a Django API server and a Node universal React renderer. The killer feature is its Elasticsearch database that searches almost 2.5M large texts and 200K named objects. All the data is stored in a PostgreSQL and there's some Python code that copies that stuff over to Elasticsearch for indexing.
The PostgreSQL database is about 10GB and the Elasticsearch (version 6.1.0) indices are about 6GB. It's moderately big and even though individual searches take, on average ~75ms (in production) it's hefty. At least for a side-project.
On my MacBook Pro, laptop I use Docker to do development. Docker makes it really easy to run one command that starts memcached, Django, a AWS Product API Node app, create-react-app for the search and a separate create-react-app for the stats web app.
At first I tried to also run PostgreSQL and Elasticsearch in
Docker too, but after many attempts I had to just give up. It was too slow. Elasticsearch would keep crashing even though I extended my memory in Docker to 4GB.
This very blog (www.peterbe.com) has a similar stack. Redis, PostgreSQL, Elasticsearch all running in Docker. It works great. One single docker-compose up web starts everything I need. But when it comes to much larger databases, I found my macOS host to be much more performant.
So the dark side of this is that I have remember to do more things when starting work on this project. My PostgreSQL was installed with Homebrew and is always running on my laptop. For Elasticsearch I have to open a dedicated terminal and go to a specific location to start the Elasticsearch for this project (e.g. make start-elasticsearch).
The way I do this is that I have this in my Django projects
settings.py:
import dj_database_url
from decouple import config
DATABASES = {
'default': config(
'DATABASE_URL',
# Hostname 'docker.for.mac.host.internal' assumes
# you have at least Docker 17.12.
# For older versions of Docker use 'docker.for.mac.localhost'
default='postgresql://peterbe@docker.for.mac.host.internal/songsearch',
cast=dj_database_url.parse
)
}
ES_HOSTS = config('ES_HOSTS', default='docker.for.mac.host.internal:9200', cast=Csv())
(Actually, in reality the defaults in the settings.py code is localhost and I use docker-compose.yml environment variables to override this, but the point is hopefully still there.)
And that's basically it. Now I get Docker to do what various virtualenvs and terminal scripts used to do but the performance of running the big databases on the host.
05 January 2018 0 comments Docker, Mozilla, Web development, Python
tl;dr; Whatsdeployed.io is an impressively simple web app to help web developers and web ops people quickly see what GitHub commits have made it into your Dev, Stage or Prod environment. Today it got a facelift.
The code is now more than 5 years old and has served me well. It's weird to talk too positively about the app because I actually wrote it but because it's so simple in terms of design and effort it feels less personal to talk about it.
Here's what's in the facelift
- Upgraded to Bootstrap 4.
- Instead of relying on downloading a heavy Glyphicon web font, just to display a single checkmark, that's now a simple image.
- Ability to use a GitHub developer personal token to avoid rate limitations on GitHub's API.
- The first lookup to get all commits is now done via the Flask app to use my auth token to avoid the rate limit.
- Much better error handling if any of the underlying
requests.get() that the Flask app does, fails. Also includes which URL it failed on. - Basic validation to prevent submitting the main form without typing anything in.
- You can hack on it with Docker. Thanks @willkg.
- Improved the code that extracts Bugzilla bug numbers out of commit messages. Thanks @edmorely.
- Refreshed screenshots in the
README.md -
A brand new introduction text on the home page for people who end up on the site not knowing what it is.
- If any XHR errors happen figuring out the "culprits", you now get a pretty error describing this instead of swallowing it all.
Please let me know if there's anything broken or missing.
17 November 2017 20 comments Docker, ReactJS, Javascript, Web development, Linux
Why would you want to use Docker to do React app work? Isn't Docker for server-side stuff like Python and Golang etc? No, all the benefits of Docker apply to JavaScript client-side work too.
So there are three main things you want to do with create-react-app; dev server, running tests and creating build artifacts. Let's look at all three but using Docker.
Create-react-app first
If you haven't already, install create-react-app globally:
▶ yarn global add create-react-app
And, once installed, create a new project:
▶ create-react-app docker-create-react-app
...lots of output...
▶ cd docker-create-react-app
▶ ls
README.md node_modules package.json public src yarn.lock
We won't need the node_modules here in the project directory. Instead, when building the image we're going let node_modules stay inside the image. So you can go ahead and... rm -fr node_modules.
Create the Dockerfile
Let's just dive in. This Dockerfile is the minimum:
FROM node:8
ADD yarn.lock /yarn.lock
ADD package.json /package.json
ENV NODE_PATH=/node_modules
ENV PATH=$PATH:/node_modules/.bin
RUN yarn
WORKDIR /app
ADD . /app
EXPOSE 3000
EXPOSE 35729
ENTRYPOINT ["/bin/bash", "/app/run.sh"]
CMD ["start"]
A couple of things to notice here.
First of all we're basing this on the official Node v8 repository on Docker Hub. That gives you a Node and Yarn by default.
Note how the NODE_PATH environment variable puts the node_modules in the root of the container. That's so that it doesn't get added in "here" (i.e. the current working directory). If you didn't do this, the node_modules directory would be part of the mounted volume which not only slows down Docker (since there are so many files) it also isn't necessary to see those files.
Note how the ENTRYPOINT points to run.sh. That's a file we need to create too, alongside the Dockerfile file.
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -eo pipefail
case $1 in
start)
# The '| cat' is to trick Node that this is an non-TTY terminal
# then react-scripts won't clear the console.
yarn start | cat
;;
build)
yarn build
;;
test)
yarn test $@
;;
*)
exec "$@"
;;
esac
Lastly, as a point of convenience, note that the default CMD is "start". That's so that when you simply run the container the default thing it does is to run yarn start.
Build container
Now let's build it:
▶ docker image build -t react:app .
The -t react:app is up to you. It doesn't matter so much what it is unless you're going to upload your container the a registry. Then you probably want the repository to be something unique.
Let's check that the build is there:
▶ docker image ls react:app
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
react app 3ee5c7596f57 13 minutes ago 996MB
996MB! The base Node image is about ~700MB and the node_modules directory (for a clean new create-react-app) is ~160MB (at the time of writing). What the remaining difference is, I'm not sure. But it's empty calories and easy to lose. When you blow away the built image (docker image rmi react:app) your hard drive gets all that back and no actual code is lost.
Before we run it, lets go inside and see what was created:
▶ docker container run -it react:app bash
root@996e708a30c4:/app# ls
Dockerfile README.md package.json public run.sh src yarn.lock
root@996e708a30c4:/app# du -sh /node_modules/
148M /node_modules/
root@996e708a30c4:/app# sw-precache
Total precache size is about 355 kB for 14 resources.
service-worker.js has been generated with the service worker contents.
The last command (sw-precache) was just to show that executables in /node_modules/.bin are indeed on the $PATH and can be run.
Run container
Now to run it:
▶ docker container run -it -p 3000:3000 react:app
yarn run v1.3.2
$ react-scripts start
Starting the development server...
Compiled successfully!
You can now view docker-create-react-app in the browser.
Local: http://localhost:3000/
On Your Network: http://172.17.0.2:3000/
Note that the development build is not optimized.
To create a production build, use yarn build.
Pretty good. Open http://localhost:3000 in your browser and you should see the default create-react-app app.
Next step; Warm reloading
create-react-app does not support hot reloading of components. But it does support web page reloading. As soon as a local file is changed, it sends a signal to the browser (using WebSockets) to tell it to... document.location.reload().
To make this work, we need to do two things:
1) Mount the current working directory into the Docker container
2) Expose the WebSocket port
The WebSocket thing is set up by exposing port 35729 to the host (-p 35729:35729
).
Below is an example running this with a volume mount and both ports exposed.
▶ docker container run -it -p 3000:3000 -p 35729:35729 -v $(pwd):/app react:app
yarn run v1.3.2
$ react-scripts start
Starting the development server...
Compiled successfully!
You can now view docker-create-react-app in the browser.
Local: http://localhost:3000/
On Your Network: http://172.17.0.2:3000/
Note that the development build is not optimized.
To create a production build, use yarn build.
Compiling...
Compiled successfully!
Compiling...
Compiled with warnings.
./src/App.js
Line 7: 'neverused' is assigned a value but never used no-unused-vars
Search for the keywords to learn more about each warning.
To ignore, add // eslint-disable-next-line to the line before.
Compiling...
Failed to compile.
./src/App.js
Module not found: Can't resolve './Apps.css' in '/app/src'
In the about example output. First I make a harmless save in the src/App.js file just to see that the dev server notices and that my browser reloads when I did that. That's where it says
Compiling...
Compiled successfully!
Secondly, I make an edit that triggers a warning. That's where it says:
Compiling...
Compiled with warnings.
./src/App.js
Line 7: 'neverused' is assigned a value but never used no-unused-vars
Search for the keywords to learn more about each warning.
To ignore, add // eslint-disable-next-line to the line before.
And lastly I make an edit by messing with the import line
Compiling...
Failed to compile.
./src/App.js
Module not found: Can't resolve './Apps.css' in '/app/src'
This is great! Isn't create-react-app wonderful?
Build build :)
There are many things you can do with the code you're building. Let's pretend that the intention is to build a single-page-app and then take the static assets (including the index.html) and upload them to a public CDN or something. To do that we need to generate the build directory.
The trick here is to run this with a volume mount so that when it creates /app/build (from the perspective) of the container, that directory effectively becomes visible in the host.
▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app build
yarn run v1.3.2
$ react-scripts build
Creating an optimized production build...
Compiled successfully.
File sizes after gzip:
35.59 KB build/static/js/main.591fd843.js
299 B build/static/css/main.c17080f1.css
The project was built assuming it is hosted at the server root.
To override this, specify the homepage in your package.json.
For example, add this to build it for GitHub Pages:
"homepage" : "http://myname.github.io/myapp",
The build folder is ready to be deployed.
You may serve it with a static server:
yarn global add serve
serve -s build
Done in 5.95s.
Now, on the host:
▶ tree build
build
├── asset-manifest.json
├── favicon.ico
├── index.html
├── manifest.json
├── service-worker.js
└── static
├── css
│ ├── main.c17080f1.css
│ └── main.c17080f1.css.map
├── js
│ ├── main.591fd843.js
│ └── main.591fd843.js.map
└── media
└── logo.5d5d9eef.svg
4 directories, 10 files
The contents of that file you can now upload to a CDN some public Nginx server that points to this as the root directory.
Running tests
This one is so easy and obvious now.
▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app test
Note the that we're setting up a volume mount here again. Since the test runner is interactive it sits and waits for file changes and re-runs tests immediately, it's important to do the mount now.
All regular jest options work too. For example:
▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app test --coverage
▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app test --help
Debugging the node_modules
First of all, when I say "debugging the node_modules", in this context, I'm referring to messing with node_modules whilst running tests or running the dev server.
One way to debug the node_modules used is to enter a bash shell and literally mess with the files inside it. First, start the dev server (or start the test runner) and give the container a name:
▶ docker container run -it -p 3000:3000 -p 35729:35729 -v $(pwd):/app --name mydebugging react:app
Now, in a separate terminal start bash in the container:
▶ docker exec -it mydebugging bash
Once you're in you can install an editor and start editing files:
root@2bf8c877f788:/app# apt-get update && apt-get install jed
root@2bf8c877f788:/app# jed /node_modules/react/index.js
As soon as you make changes to any of the files, the dev server should notice and reload.
When you stop the container all your changes will be reset. So if you had to sprinkle the node_modules with console.log('WHAT THE HECK!') all of those disappear when the container is stopped.
NodeJS shell
This'll come as no surprise by now. You basically run bash and you're there:
▶ docker container run -it -v $(pwd):/app react:app bash
root@2a21e8206a1f:/app# node
> [] + 1
'1'
Conclusion
When I look back at all the commands above, I can definitely see how it's pretty intimidating and daunting. So many things to remember and it's got that nasty feeling where you feel like your controlling your development environment through unwieldy levers rather than your own hands.
But think of the fundamental advantages too! It's all encapsulated now. What you're working on will be based on the exact same version of everything as your teammate, your dev server and your production server are using.
Pros:
- All packaged up and all team members get the exact same versions of everything, including Node and Yarn.
- The
node_modules directory gets out of your hair. - Perhaps some React code is just a small part of a large project. E.g. the frontend is React, the backend is Django. Then with some
docker-compose magic you can have it all
running with one command without needing to run the frontend in a separate terminal.
Cons:
- Lack of color output in terminal.
- The initial (or infrequent) wait for building the docker image is brutal on a slow network.
- Lots of commands to remember. For example, How do you start a shell again?
In my (Mozilla Services) work, the projects I work on, I actually use docker-compose for all things. And I have a Makefile to help me remember all the various docker-compose commands (thanks Jannis & Will!). One definitely neat thing you can do with docker-compose is start multiple containers. Then you can, with one command, start a Django server and the create-react-app dev server with one command. Perhaps a blog post for another day.
05 November 2017 2 comments Docker, MacOSX
tl;dr; To build once and run Docker containers with different files use a volume mount. If that's not an option, like in CircleCI, avoid volume mount and rely on container build every time.
What the heck is a volume mount anyway?
Laugh all you like but after almost year of using Docker I'm still learning the basics. Apparently. This, now, feels laughable but there's a small chance someone else stumbles like I did and they might appreciate this.
If you have a volume mounted for a service in your docker-compose.yml
it will basically take whatever you mount and lay that on top of what was in the Docker container. Doing a volume mount into the same working directory as your container is totally common. When you do that the files on the host (the files/directories mounted) get used between each run. If you don't do that, you're stuck with the files, from your host, from the last time you built.
Consider...:
# Dockerfile
FROM python:3.6-slim
LABEL maintainer="mail@peterbe.com"
COPY . /app
WORKDIR /app
CMD ["python", "run.py"]
and...:
#!/usr/bin/env python
if __name__ == '__main__':
print("hello!")
Let's build it:
$ docker image build -t test:latest .
Sending build context to Docker daemon 5.12kB
Step 1/5 : FROM python:3.6-slim
---> 0f1dc0ba8e7b
Step 2/5 : LABEL maintainer "mail@peterbe.com"
---> Using cache
---> 70cf25f7396c
Step 3/5 : COPY . /app
---> 2e95935cbd52
Step 4/5 : WORKDIR /app
---> bc5be932c905
Removing intermediate container a66e27ecaab3
Step 5/5 : CMD python run.py
---> Running in d0cf9c546fee
---> ad930ce66a45
Removing intermediate container d0cf9c546fee
Successfully built ad930ce66a45
Successfully tagged test:latest
And run it:
$ docker container run test:latest
hello!
So basically my little run.py got copied into the container by the Dockerfile. Let's change the file:
$ sed -i.bak s/hello/allo/g run.py
$ python run.py
allo!
But it won't run like that if we run the container again:
$ docker container run test:latest
hello!
So, the container is now built based on a Python file from back of the time the container was built. Two options:
1) Rebuild, or
2) Volume mount in the host directory
This is it! That this is your choice.
Rebuild might take time. So, let's mount the current directory from the host:
$ docker container run -v `pwd`:/app test:latest
allo!
So yay! Now it runs the container with the latest file from my host directory.
The dark side of volume mounts
So, if it's more convenient to "refresh the files in the container" with a volume mount instead of container rebuild, why not always do it for everything?
For one thing, there might be files built inside the container that cease to be visible if you override that workspace with your own volume mount.
The other crucial thing I learned the hard way (seems to obvious now!) is that there isn't always a host directory to mount. In particular, in tecken we use a base ubuntu image and in the run parts of the CircleCI configuration we were using docker-compose run ... with directives (in the docker-compose.yml
file) that uses volume mounts. So, the rather cryptic effect was that the files mounted into the container was not the files checked out from the git branch.
The resolution in this case, was to be explicit when running Docker commands in CircleCI to only do build followed by run without a volume mount. In particular, to us it meant changing from docker-compose run frontend lint to docker-compose run frontend-ci lint. Basically, it's a separate directive in the docker-compose.yml file that is exclusive to CI.
In conclusion
I feel dumb for not seeing this clearly before.
The mistake that triggered me was that when I ran docker-compose run test test (first test is the docker compose directive, the second test is the of the script sent to CMD
) it didn't change the outputs when I edit the files in my editor. Adding a volume mount to that directive solved it for me locally on my laptop but didn't work in CircleCI for reasons (I can't remember how it errored).
So now we have this:
# In docker-compose.yml
frontend:
build:
context: .
dockerfile: Dockerfile.frontend
environment:
- NODE_ENV=development
ports:
- "3000:3000"
- "35729:35729"
volumes:
- $PWD/frontend:/app
command: start
# Same as 'frontend' but no volumes or command
frontend-ci:
build:
context: .
dockerfile: Dockerfile.frontend
13 October 2017 8 comments Docker, Linux, Python
Suppose you have a bunch of files you need to Gzip in Python; what's the optimal way to do that? In serial, to avoid saturating the GIL? In multiprocessing, to spread the load across CPU cores? Or with threads?
I needed to know this for symbols.mozilla.org since it does a lot of Gzip'ing. In symbols.mozilla.org clients upload a zip file full of files
. A lot of them are plain text and when uploaded to S3 it's best to store them gzipped. Basically it does this:
def upload_sym_file(s3_client, payload, bucket_name, key_name):
file_buffer = BytesIO()
with gzip.GzipFile(fileobj=file_buffer, mode='w') as f:
f.write(payload)
file_buffer.seek(0, os.SEEK_END)
size = file_buffer.tell()
file_buffer.seek(0)
s3_client.put_object(
Bucket=bucket_name,
Key=key_name,
Body=file_buffer
)
print(f"Uploaded {size}")
Another important thing to consider before jumping into the benchmark is to appreciate the context of this application; the bundles of files I need to gzip are often many but smallish. The average file size of the files that need to be gzip'ed is ~300KB. And each bundle is between 5 to 25 files.
The Benchmark
For the sake of the benchmark, here, all it does it figure out the size of each gzipped buffer and reports that as a list.
f1 - Basic serial
def f1(payloads):
sizes = []
for payload in payloads:
sizes.append(_get_size(payload))
return sizes
f2 - Using multiprocessing.Pool
def f2(payloads): # multiprocessing
sizes = []
with multiprocessing.Pool() as p:
sizes = p.map(_get_size, payloads)
return sizes
f3 - Using concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor
def f3(payloads): # concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor
sizes = []
futures = []
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor() as executor:
for payload in payloads:
futures.append(
executor.submit(
_get_size,
payload
)
)
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(futures):
sizes.append(future.result())
return sizes
f4 - Using concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor
def f4(payloads): # concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor
sizes = []
futures = []
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
for payload in payloads:
futures.append(
executor.submit(
_get_size,
payload
)
)
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(futures):
sizes.append(future.result())
return sizes
Note that when using asynchronous methods like this, the order of items returned is not the same as they're submitted. An easy remedy if you need the results back in order is to not use a list but to use a dictionary. Then you can track each key (or index if you like) to a value.
The Results
I ran this on three different .zip files of different sizes. To get some sanity in the benchmark I made it print out how many bytes it has to process and how many bytes the gzip will manage to do.
# files 66
Total bytes to gzip 140.69MB
Total bytes gzipped 14.96MB
Total bytes shaved off by gzip 125.73MB
# files 103
Total bytes to gzip 331.57MB
Total bytes gzipped 66.90MB
Total bytes shaved off by gzip 264.67MB
# files 26
Total bytes to gzip 86.91MB
Total bytes gzipped 8.28MB
Total bytes shaved off by gzip 78.63MB
Sorry for being eastetically handicapped when it comes to using Google Docs but here goes...
This demonstrates the median times it takes each function to complete, each of the three different files.
In all three files I tested, clearly doing it serially (f1) is the worst. Supposedly since my laptop has more than one CPU core and the others are not being used. Another pertinent thing to notice is that when the work is really big, (the middle 4 bars) the difference isn't as big doing things serially compared to concurrently.
That second zip file contained a single file that was 80MB. The largest in the other two files were 18MB and 22MB.
This is the mean across all medians grouped by function and each compared to the slowest.
I call this the "bestest graph". It's a combination across all different sizes and basically concludes which one is the best, which clearly is function f3 (the one using concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor).
CPU Usage
This is probably the best way to explain how the CPU is used; I ran each function repeatedly, then opened gtop and took a screenshot of the list of processes sorted by CPU percentage.
f1 - Serially
No distractions but it takes 100% of one CPU to work.
f2 - multiprocessing.Pool
My laptop has 8 CPU cores, but I don't know why I see 9 Python processes here.
I don't know why each CPU isn't 100% but I guess there's some administrative overhead to start processes by Python.
f3 - concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor
One process, with roughly 5 x 8 = 40 threads GIL swapping back and forth but all in all it manages to keep itself very busy since threads are lightweight to share data to.
f4 - concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor
This is actually kinda like multiprocessing.Pool but with a different (arguably easier) API.
Conclusion
By a small margin concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor won. That's despite not being able to use all CPU cores. This, pseudo scientifically, proves that the overhead of starting the threads is (remember average number of files in each .zip is ~65) more worth it than being able to use all CPUs.
Discussion
There's an interesting twist to this! At least for my use case...
In the application I'm working on, there's actually a lot more that needs to be done other than just gzip'ping some blobs of files. For each file I need to a HEAD query to AWS S3 and an PUT query to AWS S3 too. So what I actually need to do is create an instance of client = botocore.client.S3 that I use to call client.list_objects_v2 and client.put_object.
When you create an instance of botocore.client.S3, automatically botocore will instanciate itself with credentials from os.environ['AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID'] etc. (or read from some /.aws file). Once created, if you ask it to do many different network operations, internally it relies on urllib3.poolmanager.PoolManager which is a list of 10 HTTP connections that get reused.
So when you run the serial version you can re-use the client instance for every file you process but you can only use one HTTP connection in the pool. With the concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor it can not only re-use the same instance of botocore.client.S3 it can cycle through all the HTTP connections in the pool.
The process based alternatives like multiprocessing.Pool and concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor can not re-use the botocore.client.S3 instance since it's not pickle'able. And it has to create a new HTTP connection for every single file.
So, the conclusion of the above rambling is that concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor is really awesome! Not only did it perform excellently in the Gzip benchmark, it has the added bonus that it can share instance objects and HTTP connections.
