db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Raymond Raymond" <raymond_de...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: Some idea about checkpoint issue, welcome to give your idea
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:21:32 GMT
As for the checkpointing issue, the main problem is that
we want to do checkpoint as much as possible, so it will
recude the recovery time, while we don't want the checkpoint
process slows down the "real" work of the system if it
occupies too much disk IO resource( the disk IO is the

Is it possible for us to determine if derby is "busy" based
on how many writes derby does in one time unit? Since
everything will be logged before being written to disk,
maybe we can figure out if derby is "busy" depending on
the growth of log. I am no sure whether it is possible to
do so.^_^.


Mike Matrigali wrote:
>Are there any opinions out there on how to determine if
>Derby "is busy"?  Is there something better than just having
>a low priority thread  and maybe some query of cpu vs. elapsed
>The first problem is that I don't think there are great tools
>for this in java.  The second problem is that often Derby is
>meant to be embedded as part of another application, so we have
>to be careful not to implement a standard server based approach
>where it is appropriate for the "server" to use up all resources
>available (ie. idle time may not really be best used by derby
>admin processes).
>I have not come up with a good answer to this problem, there are
>a number of things derby could do if it knew it had idle time
>available for it's use.  Best I have come up with is some mode
>in the system that needs to be set by the application which
>starts up Derby - either derby try's to limit it's use of idle
>cycles or it enabled to try and schedule work during idle time.
>Raymond Raymond wrote:
> > I have been thinking of the automatic checkpointing issue
> > recently.I also find someone added another issue about "Use
> > of idle time for background checkpoint" into the to-do list.
> > I think we can consider these two issue together. I have
> > some idea about it.
> >
> > Instead of doing checkpoint periodically and trying to tune the
> > checkpoint interval to achieve best performance, is it possible to
> > keep the background checkpoint process running to do checkpoint,
> > and the DBMS can tune the rate of checkpoint depending on the
> > current system situation,e.g. if the system is busy, derby will
> > slow down the checkpoint rate and if the system is not busy(idle),
> > derby will speed up the checkpoint rate.We will update the control
> > file periodically to let the DBMS know up to where we did checkpoint.
> > Maybe we can call it 'increamental checkpointing'. In my opinion,
> > this approach can use the disk IO resources with reason if we can
> > decide the checkpoint rate reasonablly.
> >
> > I would like to discuss this issue with everyone. I am not
> > sure if this approach is doable or not. If it is doable, I will
> > have some further questions about how to decide the appropriate
> > checkpoint rate.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Yours, Raymond
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special
> > stationery, fonts and colors.
> > 
> >  Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
> > first two months FREE*.
> >
> >

Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® 
SmartScreen Technology. 

  Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

View raw message