Ok, so here is the full submission for priority based queuing.
Notes since previous update:
Wasn't really able to optimize the tree search any. Tried a few things,
but nothing made a measurable performance difference.
I added a warning message and documentation making clear the issues with
On 2018/5/5 13:55, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 01:33:51PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>>> Also I'm thinking that we can even use 32-bit by putting the frontier
>>> between the date and the fixed priority (let's call it class) somewhere
>>> else :
>>> - 8 bit class + 24 bit
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 01:33:51PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> > Also I'm thinking that we can even use 32-bit by putting the frontier
> > between the date and the fixed priority (let's call it class) somewhere
> > else :
> > - 8 bit class + 24 bit offset => 256 classes and +/- 2.3 hours
On 2018/5/5 01:29, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:49:00PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>> I'm not quite following the need for multiple queues. Why wouldn't you
>> just have one sorted queue, where if multiple pending requests have the
>> same priority, then they're FIFO.
>
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:49:00PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> I'm not quite following the need for multiple queues. Why wouldn't you
> just have one sorted queue, where if multiple pending requests have the
> same priority, then they're FIFO.
That's what the time-ordered queue does. I
On 2018/5/2 22:56, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:29:33PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>> I think you're misunderstanding my design, as scoring wouldn't work like
>> this at all. If you give the gold class a score of 1000 (where higher
>> number means higher priority), then
On 2018/5/2 16:29, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/5/2 13:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>>> Can you elaborate on what you're thinking of for a time-based queue?
>>>
>>> What I'm imagining you mean is that you would write a rule to
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:29:33PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> I think you're misunderstanding my design, as scoring wouldn't work like
> this at all. If you give the gold class a score of 1000 (where higher
> number means higher priority), then the only thing that would get
> processed before
On 2018/5/2 13:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>> Can you elaborate on what you're thinking of for a time-based queue?
>>
>> What I'm imagining you mean is that you would write a rule to set the
>> max queue time, and haproxy would
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> Can you elaborate on what you're thinking of for a time-based queue?
>
> What I'm imagining you mean is that you would write a rule to set the
> max queue time, and haproxy would insert it into the queue sorting on
> TIME_NOW() +
On 2018/5/2 11:04, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 09:34:14PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>> Would it be possible to add priority based queuing to haproxy? By this I
>> mean that when a server/backend is full (maxconn), that incoming
>> requests would be added to the queue in a
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 09:34:14PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> Would it be possible to add priority based queuing to haproxy? By this I
> mean that when a server/backend is full (maxconn), that incoming
> requests would be added to the queue in a custom order. The idea here is
> that when the
12 matches
Mail list logo
