On Jan 23, 2014 7:54 PM, "Russell Branca" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 3. R15* & at least R16B01 and under are still prone to scheduler collapse. > > > I am not sure if the > > > “+st <msecs> " hack in R16B02+ eases the pain or not, nor how badly this > > > impacts heavy > > > CouchDB users. This is the “wake up all schedulers every <milliseconds> > > to > > > prevent collapse" > > > issue. Read Scott Fritchie’s threads in Erlang-Questions [1] for details > > & > > > erl man[2]. > > > > > > > > Mmm the link you refer say it is still better than in R14. Anyway this is > > the right path to follow, we should collect any issues we have in mind in > > using latest supported versions of Erlang and see how it impact us. > > > > > I'm not sure where you see anything in DCH's link [1] that says R14 is > worse. The relevant bits from that thread are "R15B0x's schedulers are > broken", and "R16B's schedulers appear to be even more broken". The only > mention of R14 I see on that thread is: "The CPU usage is noticeably lower > than R14, but worryingly so.".
old mail about an addressed issue. > > I think we should support R14 until their is a viable stable alternative, > or there is a sufficiently interesting upgrades to justify the switch. If > we need to run forked versions of 3rd party dependencies until such time > that we can upgrade in full, that seems like the logical path. Ideally we > can figure out a way to use upstream versions directly without needing to > fork. > i already answered to all these topics on the original thread. most of the issues have already been adressed along the different versions. Anyway i won't repeat myself. i still think we should have a check list if we choose to support an old, unmaintened version that don't build on all platforms. about features that woth it there are many enhancements that could help to improve our codebase. - benoît
