term solution
> that
> >> >> allows the end-user to still configure this like they were before.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm currently thinking along the lines of calling something like
> >> >> pool.dispose() in each child immediately aft
pool.dispose() in each child immediately after it is spawned. I think
>> >> this should invalidate all of the existing connections so that when a
>> >> connection is checked out of the pool a new one will be created fresh.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts? I
> >> connection is checked out of the pool a new one will be created fresh.
> >>
> >> Thoughts? I'll be testing. Hopefully, I'll have a fixed patch up soon.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Carl
> >>
> >> From: Yingjun Li
> &
om: Yingjun Li
>> Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>>
>> Date: Thursday, September 5, 2013 8:28 PM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] The three API server multi-worker
>> process pa
Yingjun Li
> Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>
> Date: Thursday, September 5, 2013 8:28 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List >
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] The three API server multi-worker
> process patches.
>
>
> +1 for Carl's patch
t
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] The three API server multi-worker
process patches.
+1 for Carl's patch, and i have abandoned my patch..
About the `MySQL server gone away` problem, I fixed it by set
'pool_recycle' to 1 in db/api.py.
在 2013年9月6日星期五,Nachi Ueno
ack Development Mailing List
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2013 8:28 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] The three API server multi-worker
process patches.
+1 for Carl's patch, and i have abandoned my patch..
About the `MySQL server gone away`
king like this patch will be cut for h3?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Brian Cline
> >>Software Engineer III, Product Innovation
> >>
> >>SoftLayer, an IBM Company
> >>4849 Alpha Rd, Dallas, TX 75244
> >>214.782.7876 direct | bcl...@softlay
>>
>>SoftLayer, an IBM Company
>>4849 Alpha Rd, Dallas, TX 75244
>>214.782.7876 direct | bcl...@softlayer.com
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-
>>From: Baldwin, Carl (HPCS Neutron) [mailto:carl.bald...@hp.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 28,
Rd, Dallas, TX 75244
>214.782.7876 direct | bcl...@softlayer.com
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Baldwin, Carl (HPCS Neutron) [mailto:carl.bald...@hp.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:04 PM
>To: Mark McClain
>Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>Sub
ssage-
From: Baldwin, Carl (HPCS Neutron) [mailto:carl.bald...@hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:04 PM
To: Mark McClain
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] The three API server multi-worker process
patches.
All,
We've known for a
All,
We've known for a while now that some duplication of work happened with
respect to adding multiple worker processes to the neutron-server. There
were a few mistakes made which led to three patches being done
independently of each other.
Can we settle on one and accept it?
I have changed my
12 matches
Mail list logo