couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ibrowse queue
Date Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:25:46 GMT
I'm always in favor of increasing rather than static backoffs because
it tolerates more environments (I use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncated_binary_exponential_backoff).

If it did back off this way would it still be necessary to treat
retry_later specially? The proposal not to decrement the retry counter
worries me because an operation that continues to fail should
eventually stop trying; clearly something is more broken than it
should be and adding to the problem is counterproductive.

B.

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, I'm concerned that we cannot rely on couch not to starve the
> reader requests while allowing the missing revs requests, leading to
> an unbounded growth of the reader queue. The reason for this is that
> the reader requests are started with spawn_monitor and therefore
> erlang scheduling might give the reader loop time issue the next
> couch_rep_missing_revs:next/1 call before any or all of the document
> read processes call couch_rep_reader:open_doc_revs/3.
>

Mime
View raw message