On 07/07/2017 04:44 AM, Ludwig Krispenz
wrote:
On 07/07/2017 07:10 AM, William Brown
wrote:
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.
boldly said. How do you know, did you verify it ?
Sorry I didn't realize there was still an issue here. Back in NDS
3.12 (maybe early 4.0) this was a very common problem (I personally
handled countless cases on it), but I have not seen it reported
since then. If it's still useful, then we should definitely keep
it, and moving to a queue is fine with me if it really adds value.
I really thought the log/delay was obsolete and no one used it
anymore. It still breaks the be txn model, so moving it back to a
plain postop plugin is the right move if we continue to use the
delay. In that case, should we make the delay the default? If it's
a still a common problem as you said, then lets just apply the
"fix/delay" out of the box.
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
So, lets open a ticket to remove delayed processing mode then?
you can, but I will oppose to implement it :-)
_______________________________________________
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
|
