On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:12 PM, John Arbash Meinel <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Seems like something you could push to failure, and then back off, if > you really wanted to push it. 1s increments per day/week, then backoff > when it starts increasing significantly, and then focus on performance > of remaining timeouts. I just have a strong suspicion that 99.9% of your > responses are way under the timeout, so you have a huge gap between > where the threshold is, and where it has an actual effect. (The requests > that fail today would be taking 20+s, the requests that succeed are down > in the <10s range. Notching from 15 to 14 certainly doesn't seem like it > would do much, which is certainly what you saw.)
https://devpad.canonical.com/~lpqateam/ppr/lpnet/latest-daily-timeout-candidates.html (internal link - sorry) - is what I use to assess impact. This is all pages over 10 seconds for their 99th percentile. The drop of 14 to 13 *added* a bunch of timeouts, but we had *also fixed a bunch*, so the absolute count stayed flat - which is good: we're at a sweet spot: a higher timeout and we're being wasteful, which leads to long lived locks, more contention etc. A lower timeout and the impact is felt by more users. I want us to ride this wave all the way down: not too hot, not to cold, Just Right. -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
