Hi! On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:58:59AM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote: > This is why thread support was introduced though. Using threads > instead of processes fixes this. Achieving the same performance with > threads will require some tuning, but at the end you'll end up with a > simple and scalable configuration.
I wholeheartly second this! Years ago we started to work on a "health check server" and various ways to share server state information between processes. At some point I thought we'd do it over the peers protocol, just before remembering there's no inter-process communication over peers. In the end, I think that the multi-process model is just obsolete and am not going to encourage any effort towards better synchronization between processes. The complexity of the problem to solve is just too high for very limited benefits. Our threaded model shares little (almost only the control plane) and doesn't suffer from the scalability issues that usually come from too much sharing, and I think we're really balanced and able to reintegrate any multi-process based config using threads. There will be rough edges of course but I'd rather invest energy addressing them than working around problems of the previous century. cheers, Willy
