kevin, what sort of applications and workloads are you speaking about. Eg in your example irc server, whats the typical workload when you've used it?
cheers -Carter On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Kevin Ballard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 20, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Carter Schonwald <[email protected]> > wrote: > > agreed! Applications that lack explicit logic for handling heavy workloads > (ie producers outpacing consumers for a sustained period) are the most > common culprit for unresponsive desktop applications that become completely > unusable. > > > That’s a pretty strong claim, and one I would have to disagree with quite > strongly. Every time I’ve sampled an unresponsive application, I don’t > think I’ve *ever* seen a backtrace that suggests a producer outpacing a > consumer. > > -Kevin > > relatedly: would not bounded but programmatically growable channels also > make it trivial to provide a "unbounded" style channel abstraction? (not > that i'm advocating that, merely that it seems like it would turn the > unbounded channel abstraction into an equivalent one that is resource usage > aware) > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:52 AM, György Andrasek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/19/2013 11:13 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote: >> >>> So I think that entire line of reasoning is a red herring. People >>> writing toy programs that never have their channels fill beyond a small >>> number of messages won't care either way. >>> >>> However, overloaded programs + queues bounded by system resources are a >>> production outage waiting to happen. What's really important here is >>> providing a means of backpressure so overloaded Rust programs don't grow >>> until they consume system resources and OOM. >>> >> >> While I disagree with the notion that all programs which don't have their >> bottlenecks right here are "toys", we should definitely strive for the >> invariant that task failure does not cause independent tasks to fail. >> >> Also, OOM is not free. If you manage to go OOM on a desktop, you'll get a >> *very* unhappy user, regardless of their expectations wrt your memory >> usage. Linux with a spinning disk and swap for example will degrade to the >> point where they'll reboot before the OOM killer kicks in. >> >> Can we PLEASE not do that *by default*? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
