From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [87.239.111.99] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24676EC56; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 22:14:47 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org F24676EC56 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tarantool.org; s=dev; t=1615662888; bh=POcB8m7+mJW1qdLHinOwWi+UjKUKEoJLvIB/1y8/JOs=; h=Date:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=lIUohvRS1BxZggEtZCrfQu3vqQleJYshy1HsopuRVCtz3DnfamfteWHh9g4UPzDeA JgY1A09XO8yjqVRObdIoqPb6lWjXRDfDbQCaO4P79A62eP4X0ulexo+IzKb3HaaK5i uU7yazOCdLwzJFhUt7rLTtCSpYPauppMDR1CabOs= Received: from mail-lj1-f174.google.com (mail-lj1-f174.google.com [209.85.208.174]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 140FB6EC56 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 22:14:47 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 140FB6EC56 Received: by mail-lj1-f174.google.com with SMTP id u4so11494590ljo.6 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:14:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to; bh=fTyOW/1zmCalgbqZRbebinOJ9aTDX9of4tA1g7gKNLg=; b=CSZf2TlH/tgr6myFjcxabCmfgI6Jdw06R6ZkAg7ATX2qfoMtvIm/IwpPGeYp+u+QQq tIQ//3FrOH+ec73k6h9yTdmMNOgi2E8YZw+iwBGiy97zgIbYIC6k7EdKYmroUISXdRau 26XR3O5w43R1W3xKUDKwhUB4+EIPB/1ewMBqraGQiQw1tnl1Ay1KqcC9vg4virDs5YFj s3wJK50o2ffSJjJ/jG5GjD6v5P85WWB/ZtQZ99kS0USCmUVuFcAjOeb1uYmDWXaWFkyq 00TWvgdED3bfPFIz9OocNy3fRZlc4IMZB7vLJNClw+Kvzu/ZJMTJ0rNUHGdrZO8UpTrg ycyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53078KHUk0akFBRWqxvS7dYYA+DaROfOBBl19wJ6eBYLkBuVdqgt Oy18I80ByFCCSxIsUJfeP0lOI0mE2A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyUU6Ez8aLfK6RVYknZS0aRb61uRHFbNQmyKOCULwPBfUZVRYc2EkjAMPJfd5k0NWuJhQ+EYQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6a15:: with SMTP id f21mr6043945ljc.9.1615662886420; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:14:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sterling.local ([46.188.68.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i123sm2334330lji.108.2021.03.13.11.14.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:14:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by sterling.local (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6AB9EE60068; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 22:14:45 +0300 (MSK) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 22:14:45 +0300 To: Serge Petrenko Message-ID: <20210313191445.GA13521@starling> Mail-Followup-To: Konstantin Osipov , Serge Petrenko , Vladislav Shpilevoy , gorcunov@gmail.com, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org References: <20210224193549.70017-1-sergepetrenko@tarantool.org> <26fde1bf-a972-fe03-fffe-818839718394@tarantool.org> <20210310081804.GA87351@starling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3] wal: introduce limits on simultaneous writes X-BeenThere: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches Reply-To: Konstantin Osipov Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, Vladislav Shpilevoy Errors-To: tarantool-patches-bounces@dev.tarantool.org Sender: "Tarantool-patches" * Serge Petrenko [21/03/12 20:14]: > > * Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches [21/03/09 23:44]: > > > Hi! Thanks for the patch! > > > > > > LGTM. > > > > > > > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5536 > > > > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/sp/gh-5536-replica-oom > > I don't understand why you need two parameters, size and len. What > > difference does it make how many requests are in the queue? The > > queue is IO and memory bound, not CPU bound, at least not more cpu > > bound than any other subsystem. > > > > Pushing the problem to the user by forcing them to choose not one, > > but two configuration values is poor design. How am I supposed to > > know what is the right value for the option? > > After some consideration, let's only leave size. > I've force pushed the changes on the branch. > > I've also implemented some kind of a fiber semaphore in a separate commit on > top. > I'm not sure I like how it turned out, so feel free to throw it away. Or > keep it. As long as you can benchmark it showing that it is has a reasonable default (it should be pretty straightforward to benchmark - send a huge xlog over 10Gb link to tarantool running on a reasonably fresh SSD and find out optimal limit size) I will be pretty happy with dropping the size. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia