Oh duh. I was only thinking about the scheduling aspect but I'm guessing you were also thinking about the fragmentation settings and so on that don't have a direct equivalent. Seems fair to me.
To be fair, that was before I was properly caffeinated. On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:56 AM Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> wrote: > > I was just going to port over the `check_period` function and add support for > “from” and “to” as per-channel config parameters, so I don’t think it will > meaningfully help with the rationalization of the config systems. > > Adam > > > On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:15 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Seems mostly reasonable. The only thing I'd add is that if we're > > looking to implement #1 I'd assume we'd reuse or at least rework the > > old compaction daemon code which makes me think that #3 would be > > trivial to support? > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:25 AM Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> CouchDB 3.0 will feature a new, smarter auto-compaction daemon with the > >> following key features: > >> > >> - continuous re-prioritization of compaction queues based on estimated > >> space savings > >> - fine-grained control over compaction “channels” to independently > >> prioritize different types of jobs (large databases, small views, etc.) > >> - QoS capabilities: compaction I/O is executed at low priority by default, > >> but admins can can reprioritize as needed > >> > >> However, there are a few gaps compared to the daemon in 2.x: > >> > >> 1. no ability to configure compaction to only run during specific time > >> intervals > >> 2. no ability to specify compaction thresholds for specific databases > >> 3. incompatible configuration system; users who have customized their > >> auto-compaction configuration in 2.x will need to redo their configuration > >> in 3.0 > >> > >> I have those gaps ordered in what I’d consider to be the priority. I think > >> we should try to address #1 before 3.0 as I’m sure many DBAs have grown > >> accustomed to compacting during quiet hours and could be forgiven if they > >> don’t trust our fancy QoS to keep things healthy on Day 1. I can see where > >> #2 could be a nice enhancement but I’m OK to wait for user feedback on > >> that one. #3 I’m content to solve with a migration guide in the > >> documentation. > >> > >> Does that plan make sense to everyone? > >> > >> Adam >