|
On 07/07/2017 07:10 AM, William Brown
wrote:
boldly said. How do you know, did you verify it ?Any thoughts or objections on the above would be welcome.The only problem with going to a queue is if the server goes down unexpectedly. In such a case those RI updates would be lost.We already have this issue because there is a delay between the change to the object and the log being sync() to disk. So we can already lose changes here. TBH the only fix is ot remove the async model. I actually question why we still need async/delay processing of the refint plugin ...Historically speaking, a long time ago, we used to see high CPU when the RI plugin was engaged. Setting the delay to 1 second, and allowing the log thread to do the work, improved performance. Of course this is now obsolete with the betxn plugin model and other improvements, but I wanted to share why the feature even existed.I guess that would be related to internal op searches / lack of indexing. These days it's not as big of an issue. we have seen many customer issues with refereint which were resolved by making it async, just removing this option without proof of a better solution is no good. I also am not sure if we need to tie anything into the betxn. There are operations, which, in my opinion, can be delayed, even redone by fixup tasks, so it is not necessary to have it in one txn, and if the option is there to delay it if you want, we should not take it away you can, but I will oppose to implement it :-)So, lets open a ticket to remove delayed processing mode then?
-- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander |
_______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
