You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> on 2014/04/01 09:56:08 UTC

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Hi all,

Just for been sure before push the fix are we agree on the next statements:

1) Increase socket buffers (probably, strong yes)

According the latest comment on COUCHDB-1986:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1986?focusedCommentId=13955355#comment-13955355

32KiB may be not enough for better performance. Uncommenting the
config line to increase buffers value up to 256KiB sounds more
reasonable in this particular case. Also, this fix is very easy to
apply on older releases that are also affected to the same issue on
the same OS's.

2) Disable Nagle's algorithm

This is unrelated to the our issue, but if we're going to change the
socket options, why not to improve communication for small data chunks
in the same time? Should be helpful for replication too.


--
,,,^..^,,,


On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 28 Mar 2014, at 14:39 , Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> In this week’s IRC meeting we discussed what’s up with 1.6.0. While the decision
>> rests with the Release Manager djc@ it’s worth discussing.
>>
>> # Blockers
>>
>> We have 1 blocker, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1986 and the
>> fix is simply setting the tcp receive buffer size to 32786, or 4x the previous
>> value.
>>
>> Exactly why this is a now a problem and wasn’t before is not clear, but in
>> a couple of weeks of fiddling we’ve not come up with a better solution, and
>> nobody’s found other issues as a result of it.
>>
>> In the meeting we put forward 3 options for how to include this fix in the
>> source:
>>
>> 1. uncomment the equivalent line in default.ini
>>
>>       socket_options = [{recbuf, 262144}, {sndbuf, 262144}, {nodelay, true}]
>>
>> 2. update the default value directly in /src/mochiweb/internal.hrl
>>
>>       -define(RECBUF_SIZE, 8192 * 4).
>
> +1 to either one of 1. or 2.
>
> And to re-cutting 1.6.x from master.
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
>>
>> 3. change the specific setting only for the replication tests
>>
>> This boils down to “have people been seeing this in the real world?” and the
>> answer is yes, with pretty severe impact.
>>
>> Please pick one!
>>
>> # Patch 1.6.x branch or update to current master
>>
>> Personally I’m undecided on this, master has 180 further commits , esp
>> Fauxton, and also a few other important ones. These could be cherry picked
>> but is there any reason not to cut a new 1.6.x off current master instead?
>> I’ve no real view of the actual work involved BTW, so please educate me.
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/compare/1.6.x...master
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> --
>> Dave Cottlehuber
>> Sent from my PDP11
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de>.
On 1 April 2014 15:10, Dirkjan Ochtman <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The fix just landed on master. Dirkjan, when would you have a time to
> > recut the 1.6.x for making next vote round?
>
> Yup, will try to get to it soon. Releasing 1.5.1 should probably take
> precedence, though...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>

Hi Dirkjan,

+1

I think 1.5.1 has precedence

Cheers

Andy


-- 
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!

http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de

GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588

https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl>.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
> I’m not sure about the 1.5 branch. But on master it should get built as part of the make build.

Thanks for the quick reply. For 1.5, we should have the pre-built
Fauxton, and since nothing changed in that department between 1.5.0
and 1.5.1, I think we should be fine there.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org>.
I’m not sure about the 1.5 branch. But on master it should get built as part of the make build.


On 01 Apr 2014, at 7:43 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. Thanks!
> 
> So, do we have a good process for building/distributing Fauxton yet?
> Is there some easy (read: automated) way I can rebuild Fauxton for
> distribution?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl>.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. Thanks!

So, do we have a good process for building/distributing Fauxton yet?
Is there some easy (read: automated) way I can rebuild Fauxton for
distribution?

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fix just landed on master. Dirkjan, when would you have a time to
>> recut the 1.6.x for making next vote round?
>
> Yup, will try to get to it soon. Releasing 1.5.1 should probably take
> precedence, though...

Agreed. Thanks!

--
,,,^..^,,,

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Dirkjan Ochtman <dj...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fix just landed on master. Dirkjan, when would you have a time to
> recut the 1.6.x for making next vote round?

Yup, will try to get to it soon. Releasing 1.5.1 should probably take
precedence, though...

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
> Erm - not sure if I missed something but why another vote round? The last
> candidate was not rejected ...

Probably, I said that wrong. Recut 1.6.x, prepare 1.6.0-rc2 release
and start voting on this.

--
,,,^..^,,,

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de>.
Erm - not sure if I missed something but why another vote round? The last
candidate was not rejected ...

Cheers

Andy


On 1 April 2014 14:16, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The fix just landed on master. Dirkjan, when would you have a time to
> recut the 1.6.x for making next vote round?
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> On 1 April 2014 09:56, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2) Disable Nagle's algorithm
> >>>
> >>> This is unrelated to the our issue, but if we're going to change the
> >>> socket options, why not to improve communication for small data chunks
> >>> in the same time? Should be helpful for replication too.
> >>
> >> We're already about 6 months overdue on this release (unavoidable).
> >> I'm nervous about "slipping in" any extra features.
> >
> > Ok, let's not make large leaps forward without proper testing.
> >
> > --
> > ,,,^..^,,,
>



-- 
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!

http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de

GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588

https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
The fix just landed on master. Dirkjan, when would you have a time to
recut the 1.6.x for making next vote round?
--
,,,^..^,,,


On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 1 April 2014 09:56, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Disable Nagle's algorithm
>>>
>>> This is unrelated to the our issue, but if we're going to change the
>>> socket options, why not to improve communication for small data chunks
>>> in the same time? Should be helpful for replication too.
>>
>> We're already about 6 months overdue on this release (unavoidable).
>> I'm nervous about "slipping in" any extra features.
>
> Ok, let's not make large leaps forward without proper testing.
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 09:56, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2) Disable Nagle's algorithm
>>
>> This is unrelated to the our issue, but if we're going to change the
>> socket options, why not to improve communication for small data chunks
>> in the same time? Should be helpful for replication too.
>
> We're already about 6 months overdue on this release (unavoidable).
> I'm nervous about "slipping in" any extra features.

Ok, let's not make large leaps forward without proper testing.

--
,,,^..^,,,

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.6.0 proposals

Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 1 April 2014 09:56, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2) Disable Nagle's algorithm
>
> This is unrelated to the our issue, but if we're going to change the
> socket options, why not to improve communication for small data chunks
> in the same time? Should be helpful for replication too.

We're already about 6 months overdue on this release (unavoidable).
I'm nervous about "slipping in" any extra features.


-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater