Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 24, 2026. It is now read-only.

Update facil.io version#3259

Merged
NateBrady23 merged 7 commits intoTechEmpower:masterfrom
boazsegev:master
Feb 7, 2018
Merged

Update facil.io version#3259
NateBrady23 merged 7 commits intoTechEmpower:masterfrom
boazsegev:master

Conversation

@boazsegev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I doubt if this is necessary, but Michael mentioned there were issue with the facil.io run (or, to be precise, that something happened on the app server during, or just before, the facil.io run).

The updated version mainly focused on the Websocket client features and minor refactoring, but the minor refactoring included changes to the logic in the beta.2 fix for cluster mode, so maybe this will help.

I should probably point out that I stress tested the beta.4 today with no adverse effects (no memory leaks, no crashes, all was good). However, I have no way to test an 80 core cluster with remote clients (I just don't have that kind of access), so I'm not sure if this fixes whatever went wrong (if it's even facil.io related).

Sidenote: I removed the 0.0.0.0 binding from the command line. The NULL address should support IPv6, while I fear the 0.0.0.0 might limit the address scheme to IPv4 (I doubt it, but I never tested the idea).

Bo added 6 commits February 1, 2018 02:06
Reviewing the testing logs exposed the fact that facil.io detected 80
CPU cores on the host machine (?!)… which invoked 80 forks.

This large number of forks was never attempted before and it exposed a
number of issues which were fixed in the beta.2 release.

This release also includes other minor updates and fixes which are
probably irrelevant (such as updated to the pub/sub and a fix for the
Redis engine etc’).
I doubt if this is necessary, but Michael mentioned there were issue
with the facil.io run (or, to be precise, that something happened on
the app server during, or just before, the facil.io run).

The updated version mainly focused on the Websocket client features and
minor refactoring, but the minor refactoring included changes to the
logic in the beta.2 fix for cluster mode, so maybe this will help.

I should probably point out that I stress tested the beta.4 today with
no adverse effects (no memory leaks, no crashes, all was good).
However, I have no way to test an 80 core cluster with remote clients
(I just don't have that kind of access), so I'm not sure if this fixes
whatever went wrong (if it's even facil.io related).

**Sidenote**: I removed the `0.0.0.0` binding from the command line.
The NULL address should support IPv6, while I fear the `0.0.0.0` might
limit the address scheme to IPv4 (I doubt it, but I never tested the
idea).
I doubt if this is necessary, but Michael mentioned there were issue
with the facil.io run (or, to be precise, that something happened on
the app server during, or just before, the facil.io run).

The updated version mainly focused on the Websocket client features and
minor refactoring, but the minor refactoring included changes to the
logic in the beta.2 fix for cluster mode, so maybe this will help.

I should probably point out that I stress tested the beta.4 today with
no adverse effects (no memory leaks, no crashes, all was good).
However, I have no way to test an 80 core cluster with remote clients
(I just don't have that kind of access), so I'm not sure if this fixes
whatever went wrong (if it's even facil.io related).

**Sidenote**: I removed the `0.0.0.0` binding from the command line.
The NULL address should support IPv6, while I fear the `0.0.0.0` might
limit the address scheme to IPv4 (I doubt it, but I never tested the
idea).
@michaelhixson
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

LGTM assuming it works on Travis. I tested this on ServerCentral, and it fixes the issue we're seeing with the current build of facil.io.

With credit to Michael for point this out… at some point the added
processes don’t really help as much as they use up resources.
@NateBrady23 NateBrady23 merged commit 7f70b5e into TechEmpower:master Feb 7, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants