Aglet

Investigate batch window overruns by tracing service and cutoff

Investigation should explain whether the batch could finish inside its window and what the worker did when it could not. Hold the input shape stable, compare a normal and slower run, and trace the cutoff branch. Keep throughput, dependency wait, and schedule overlap as separate hypotheses with evidence.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Create matched workload runs

    Use the same ordered records for a run with normal service and a run with a deliberately slower dependency or item path. Record due time, start, per-item completion, checkpoints, and the remaining set. Keep any changed data volume outside this comparison.

  2. Trace the cutoff decision

    Follow the worker as the remaining time approaches the boundary. Capture whether it accepts another item, waits on a dependency, writes a checkpoint, or marks partial work. Compare the branch with the documented operating-window rule, including the next occurrence.

  3. Test one recovery boundary

    Exercise the smallest candidate change, such as stopping before the next item and recording leftovers for resume, while preserving the same schedule. Compare the output and next-run behavior. If service remains too slow, leave throughput as a separate follow-up rather than widening scope.

What to carry forward

Deliver matched timelines, first cutoff divergence, remaining-item evidence, and the tested recovery behavior. State whether the brief supports rate, dependency, cutoff, or checkpoint work. A proposed change should specify how leftover items and the next occurrence are represented when the window closes.

Technical background: Celery documentation.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow