qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Straw Poll: proposal to remove certain features from qpidd
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:02:10 GMT
+1 for (a)

On 7 August 2012 19:11, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> 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<users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

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