> As for file descriptor count/memory usage, I think we should be okay > as it is not any worse than that in the non-multiplexed approach we > have today. I don't think that's true. Each logging context allocates a certain amount of memory. Let's call that X. With N bricks in separate processes, our total memory is N*X. With N bricks in one process, each using its own logging context, we're still at N*X. However, with N bricks in one process sharing a context, we'd be down to X. Even more importantly, with separate contexts we'd be touching N pages all the time, increasing the amount of *physical* memory that is devoted to logging. With respect to file descriptors, having N file descriptors *in one process* is more problematic than having one per process in N processes. We already have approximately N times as many file descriptors per process for client connections; adding another N for logging descriptors isn't going to be helpful when N might be in the hundreds. These might not be big enough effects to rule out the separate-log approach, but they're not zero either. Since reducing memory usage is a primary goal of multiplexing, I don't think we should lightly forego opportunities to do so. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
