Issue #12310 has been updated by Brice Figureau.

Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Brice Figureau wrote:
> > Daniel Pittman wrote:
> > > Brice Figureau wrote:
> > > > No this is a scheduled timer to rotate long process names (like a stock 
> > > > ticker). So rotating only when there's a new event wouldn't rotate it 
> > > > when nothing happens. But maybe there can be some other means to have 
> > > > such regular timer that wouldn't consume a thread.
> > > 
> > > Hrm.  I don't know I consider that a compelling feature, personally, so 
> > > losing the thread doesn't feel to me like a big cost and all.
> > 
> > Note that this listener was just an example listener for other people to 
> > create their own, it shouldn't have even been used normally.
> 
> Huh.  I would think the process name was the most likely listener to benefit 
> our users - like PostgreSQL, being able to get a summary of state with `ps 
> -ef` or `ps axwww` is a big win to knowing what is going on.

Yes, that's true.
 
> > Exactly. But we can do better, puppet embeds the event-loop which contains 
> > exactly what is needed but without using any threads.
> 
> Given the one use of that, we were looking to strip that out, actually.  
> Almost everything (like listen mode) just uses a background thread, and it is 
> a heavy bit of code to carry just to check if the config changed every 15 
> seconds, and to wake up when configured in daemon mode.  Adding more 
> consumers isn't really high on the agenda, and I don't think we return to the 
> event loop regularly except when the daemonized agent is idle.

I can see plenty of advantages of having a real timer. But I understand your 
point of view.

I'll see how I can fix the original bug later on (too bad for me as I had the 
EL one almost ready :)


----------------------------------------
Bug #12310: Significant slow down in 2.7.10 apply
https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/12310

Author: R.I. Pienaar
Status: Code Insufficient
Priority: Normal
Assignee: Patrick Carlisle
Category: 
Target version: 2.7.x
Affected Puppet version: 2.7.10
Keywords: 
Branch: 
https://github.com/pcarlisle/puppet/tree/ticket/2.7.x/12310-puppet-apply-fact-loading


I've been exploring approaches for running puppet masterless and in the same 
time trying to massage my manifests to be compatible with 2.7.x scoping etc.

I noticed a huge increase in run times between 2.6.9 and 2.7.10 with the same 
manifests, using envpuppet and a git clone I've gathered this information:

<pre>
======== 2.6.9  
notice: Finished catalog run in 9.95 seconds
envpuppet puppet apply --pluginsync    14.45s user 4.99s system 92% cpu 21.098 
total
======== 2.7.9  
notice: Finished catalog run in 16.52 seconds
envpuppet puppet apply --pluginsync    21.92s user 6.90s system 93% cpu 30.814 
total
======== 2.7.10  
notice: Finished catalog run in 21.34 seconds
envpuppet puppet apply --pluginsync    23.58s user 9.42s system 73% cpu 44.662 
total
</pre>

2.7.0 to 2.7.9 performs the same.  While 2.7.0-9 is already a fair bit slower 
than 2.6 was 2.7.10 adds
another 14 seconds to the run using the same manifests on the same machine.

Comparing last_run_summary.yaml files I notice that the big change in run time 
info is service:

<pre>
    2.6.9: service: 2.920294
    2.7.9: service: 8.238562
    2.7.10: service: 12.400952
</pre>

But this does not on it's own account for the time increase there seems to be a 
hit somewhere like state.yaml handling or report handling or something that 
isn't reflected here.

Unsure how to gather more useful information to narrow this down



-- 
You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, 
or are involved in it.
To change your notification preferences, please click here: 
http://projects.puppetlabs.com/my/account

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Bugs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-bugs?hl=en.

Reply via email to