+1 for (a). Rajith
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Andy Goldstein <[email protected]> wrote: > My vote is for (a) > > Andy > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: > >> So, to follow up and summarise this thread so far, the only contentious >> point has been the loss of the 'flow to disk' functionality. >> >> Though the current solution doesn't limit the memory used by a large queue, >> it can in certain cases reduce the rate of memory growth which in turn may >> buy a little more time to resolve the root cause. So while those using it >> are less than fully satisfied, they are (understandably) concerned at having >> even this limited solution taken away without having any clear plan to offer >> a replacement. >> >> I have spent a little time thinking through what a better solution might >> look like and how much effort it would take. I believe that for ~3-5 weeks >> work I could get something better in place. It would be, in the first >> instance, posix only[1]. It would be mutually exclusive with lvq or priority >> queue options. However it would be a more effective limit on the memory >> consumed as such a queue grew, and (I hope) would have a less drastic >> performance penalty at larger sizes. >> >> There are a few options for how to proceed, and I'd like to take a quick >> straw poll to see which path the community favours. >> >> (a) go ahead with the refactor, including the removal of features mentioned >> in the previous mail, subsequently focus first on AMQP 1.0 support, only >> then return to add paged queue support >> >> (b) go ahead with the refactor, including the removal of features mentioned >> in the previous mail, subsequently focus first on paged queue support, then >> proceed to add AMQP 1.0 support >> >> (c) don't go ahead with the refactor until it can be combined with an >> alternative to flow to disk, and only then proceed with AMQP 1.0 support >> >> (d) don't go ahead with the refactor at all >> >> I myself favour (a). I think AMQP 1.0 support is more important and more >> work and would like to make more progress on that as soon as possible in >> order to have something ready for the 0.20 release. I can't guarantee that >> this path would result in the 0.20 release having the replacement for flow >> to disk functionality, but if not it would come soon after. >> >> I'm not so keen on (c) because maintain such a large patch against a >> continually moving trunk is a lot of work in itself and I think that time >> can be better spent. I'm not keen on (d) because I honestly don't think I >> can add decent 1.0 support (or fix a number of known issues) without >> something like this refactor. >> >> Anyway, over to you. Let me know what you think, I'm keen we reach some >> agreement by the end of the week. In the meantime I'll try and make my >> proposal for the flow to disk replacement a bit more concrete. >> >> --Gordon. >> >> [1] It will be designed such that it is relatively simple to provide >> alternative implementations for the posix functionality such that anyone >> with interest can easily add windows support for example. From what I can >> tell, it doesn't look like flow to disk is supported on windows at present >> anyway. I could be wrong. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
