On 11/08/2013 05:47 PM, Bela Ban wrote:
>
> On 11/8/13 4:15 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
>> First of all, I think that naming "old", "new" where 3.2.7 new == 3.4.0
>> old sucks. Let's use some more meaningful names.
> Even better: I named the latest bundler "latest" ha ha :-)
>
> These names were never supposed to be exposed to the user, only to
> experts, but +1 on better names... Suggestions ? "default_bundler",
> "default_bundler2" and "transfer_queue_bundler" ? :-)
And DefaultBundler is not the default, currently.
So, to come up with some suggestions (from the 3.2.7 code as there are
all the ideas):
DefaultBundler -> TimedBundler (bundler_type="timed")
DefaultBundler2 -> LastWaitingBundler ("last_waiting")
TransferQueueBunder -> TimedQueuingBundler ("timed_queuing")
TransferQueueBundler2 -> GreedyQueuingBundler("greedy"/"greedy_queuing")
>
>> Changing the DONT_BUNDLE flag to apply on network communication but
>> rather to stack processing isn't a bad idea, if it helps performance.
>> However, changing the flag meaning to be dependent on the bundler type
>> sounds rather confusing.
> The idea is that when the battle is over, only one bundler will be used,
> so we don't need to make this distinction. However, the "old" bundler
> (which I want to kill at some point) would not perform well when
> bundling all messages.
By the way, I have accepted that 3.4 "old" is 3.2.7 "new", but looking
into code, I still see that "old" is the one waiting for
max_bundle_timeout or until there is enough waiting data... Do I miss
something? Should this "old" bundler really send all messages immediately?
As a last thought for DefaultBundler2 principle (this is the one I find
most appealing): It seems to me that the thread does not do much work in
the lock, so the bundle does not grab much messages. The format of batch
does not specify how many messages will there be in advance, so, instead
of just adding the message to list (fast), couldn't we keep the
DataOutputStream and write the message to the stream?
Cheers
Radim
>
>
>> Radim
>>
>> On 11/08/2013 11:47 AM, Bela Ban wrote:
>>> I think I'll ignore the DONT_BUNDLE flag on the sender's side if we have
>>> the right bundler in place. Take a look at [1] and let me know what you
>>> think...
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1737
>>>
>>
--
Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com>
JBoss DataGrid QA
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
