From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org> To: "Alexander V. Tikhonov" <avtikhon@tarantool.org> Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1] test: use unix sockets iproto Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 06:14:23 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190607031420.aleakgwmhaklkfpc@tkn_work_nb> (raw) In-Reply-To: <a60fd350738b47d9a14f4664d36c66232af4eb2f.1559734330.git.avtikhon@tarantool.org> I'm ok with the change itself, so formally LGTM. Please, proceed further with Kirill. WBR, Alexander Turenko. > test: use unix sockets iproto Typo: iproto -> for iproto. Maybe better 'test: use unix sockets for iproto connections'. First of all I would state explicitly 'why': "eliminated most of 'address already in use' errors seen from time to time in our testing". Then you can describe the reason of those fails, provide information about previous tries to solve it, give needed background and so on. > Enabled use_unix_sockets and use_unix_sockets_iproto options use_unix_sockets is already enabled, the phrase is misleading. > to use unix sockets iproto instead of TcpPortDispatcher which > was previously introduced to eliminate the race condition when > two workers trying to use the same port: the idea was that each > worker used its own ports range. Really these ports could race > with client ports (from, say, net.box or replication), which > typically didn't use bind() and so bound to a random available > port (despite any dispatched ranges) and could produce > 'Address already in use' error. I would separate a description of the new way to handle the problem ('Enabled use_unix_sockets_iproto option to let test-run appoint unix sockets for LISTEN environment variable values') and a description of previous approaches ('TCP port ranges and so on') if you really want to give enough context and describe the latter one entirely. It is not obligatory I think. I mean, now it is not easy to understand that you describe disadvantages on a *previous* approach and almost all this paragraph is not about a code that is enabled in this commit. I think it can mislead someone if (s)he has less knowledge around test-run then you. You are formally right however, so ignore my wording nitpicking if you don't agree and just proceed with Kirill. > > Closes: #4008 > --- > > Github: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/avtikhon/gh-4008-test-in-parallel-iproto > Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4008
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-07 3:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-06-05 11:32 [tarantool-patches] " Alexander V. Tikhonov 2019-06-07 3:14 ` Alexander Turenko [this message] -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2019-04-04 8:49 avtikhon 2019-04-07 7:28 ` [tarantool-patches] " Alexander Turenko
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190607031420.aleakgwmhaklkfpc@tkn_work_nb \ --to=alexander.turenko@tarantool.org \ --cc=avtikhon@tarantool.org \ --cc=tarantool-patches@freelists.org \ --subject='[tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1] test: use unix sockets iproto' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox