geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Merging GEODE-6424 into release/1.9.0
Date Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:01:31 GMT
+1 for bringing in this fix to 1.9.0 (esp if this fixes a race condition
that is introduced by GEODE-6424 which is already merged).

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:56 AM Helena Bales <hbales@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Does anyone have an issue with merging
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3220 to the 1.9.0 release branch?
>
> It fixes a race condition introduced by the fix to GEODE-6424 that was
> approved above. It is critical that we keep the fix to GEODE-6424 in 1.9.0
> in order to be able to proceed with benchmarking Geode, so we should also
> merge this fix to avoid issues with concurrent access and modification of
> gauge statistics.
>
> ~Helena
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:58 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > My bad! Sorry!
> >
> > > On Feb 20, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Jake,
> > >
> > > release branch build seems broken due to spotless changes.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/apache-release-1-9-0-main
> > >
> > > Sai
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:59 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Done!
> > >>
> > >>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 1:22 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> +1, Go,Go,GO!!
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 2/20/19 12:24, Jacob Barrett wrote:
> > >>>> Anyone have issue with merging
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6424 <
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6424> into release/1.9.0?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Without it we will have to wait for the next release before we
can
> > have
> > >> meaningful baselines for function and query benchmarks. Without this
> fix
> > >> baselines will continue to vary by as much as 45% making them useless.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It’s also a big performance boost. Concurrent local cache gets
see
> > >> about a 50% bump in throughput due to reduced contention for stats,
> even
> > >> with timed stats enabled. Other operations haven’t been benchmarked
> but
> > >> should see similar improvements where stats were the bottleneck.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Jake
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message