activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Artemis IOPS Limiter strategy
Date Wed, 10 May 2017 20:35:46 GMT
that's fair...

Panic is over.. when I first read your message I thought you had
completely changed semantics.. and it's not that deep.

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:08 PM, nigro_franz <> wrote:
> Hi Clebert!
> Before reverting anything I think could be good to perform some tests to be
> sure of regressions, AFAIK the are only performance improving, but the final
> word I think will go to proper load tests.
> Instead, I've already done sanity tests trying to push IOPS over the limits
> with the 2 TimedBuffer implementations (old and new one) and both suffer
> from the same issue, simply in different ways, but TBH, as I've said before,
> is not a big issue: it's more a possible chance of improvement from what we
> have now.
> The test I'm talking is in this branch (using the original TimedBuffer):
> Is the  shouldNotFlushUntilTimeout test
> <>
> , but I can build another couples of tests that do something similar and
> producing the same effect.
> What the test verify is straightforward: a TimedBuffer can't accept 2
> flushes to happen before the timeout expiration, because this would force a
> disk to perform too many IOPS than expected...and the test fails for both
> the TimedBuffer.
> As I've said I propose to wait proper load tests before reverting it,
> considering that the test shows that the original version was suffering the
> same issue.
> What do you think?
> Franz
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

Clebert Suconic

View raw message