qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Straw Poll: proposal to remove certain features from qpidd
Date Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:35:56 GMT
+1 for (a)

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 19:11 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote:
> So, to follow up and summarise this thread so far, the only contentious 
> point has been the loss of the 'flow to disk' functionality.
> 
> Though the current solution doesn't limit the memory used by a large 
> queue, it can in certain cases reduce the rate of memory growth which in 
> turn may buy a little more time to resolve the root cause. So while 
> those using it are less than fully satisfied, they are (understandably) 
> concerned at having even this limited solution taken away without having 
> any clear plan to offer a replacement.
> 
> I have spent a little time thinking through what a better solution might 
> look like and how much effort it would take. I believe that for ~3-5 
> weeks work I could get something better in place. It would be, in the 
> first instance, posix only[1]. It would be mutually exclusive with lvq 
> or priority queue options. However it would be a more effective limit on 
> the memory consumed as such a queue grew, and (I hope) would have a less 
> drastic performance penalty at larger sizes.
> 
> There are a few options for how to proceed, and I'd like to take a quick 
> straw poll to see which path the community favours.
> 
> (a) go ahead with the refactor, including the removal of features 
> mentioned in the previous mail, subsequently focus first on AMQP 1.0 
> support, only then return to add paged queue support
> 
> (b) go ahead with the refactor, including the removal of features 
> mentioned in the previous mail, subsequently focus first on paged queue 
> support, then proceed to add AMQP 1.0 support
> 
> (c) don't go ahead with the refactor until it can be combined with an 
> alternative to flow to disk, and only then proceed with AMQP 1.0 support
> 
> (d) don't go ahead with the refactor at all
> 
> I myself favour (a). I think AMQP 1.0 support is more important and more 
> work and would like to make more progress on that as soon as possible in 
> order to have something ready for the 0.20 release. I can't guarantee 
> that this path would result in the 0.20 release having the replacement 
> for flow to disk functionality, but if not it would come soon after.
> 
> I'm not so keen on (c) because maintain such a large patch against a 
> continually moving trunk is a lot of work in itself and I think that 
> time can be better spent. I'm not keen on (d) because I honestly don't 
> think I can add decent 1.0 support (or fix a number of known issues) 
> without something like this refactor.
> 
> Anyway, over to you. Let me know what you think, I'm keen we reach some 
> agreement by the end of the week. In the meantime I'll try and make my 
> proposal for the flow to disk replacement a bit more concrete.
> 
> --Gordon.
> 
> [1] It will be designed such that it is relatively simple to provide 
> alternative implementations for the posix functionality such that anyone 
> with interest can easily add windows support for example. From what I 
> can tell, it doesn't look like flow to disk is supported on windows at 
> present anyway. I could be wrong.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message