Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

improve the behavior of needs_merge #117

Closed
evanmcc opened this issue Oct 31, 2013 · 3 comments
Closed

improve the behavior of needs_merge #117

evanmcc opened this issue Oct 31, 2013 · 3 comments

Comments

@evanmcc
Copy link
Contributor

evanmcc commented Oct 31, 2013

A few things here:

  • We shouldn't even call needs merge outside of merge windows, as it's pointless, repeated work and blocks the vnode, raising tail latencies.
  • We should add some randomness to the scheduling of needs merge to make lockstep less likely.
  • Reconsider the 3 minute needs_merge interval. We should at least make it tunable.
@evanmcc
Copy link
Contributor Author

evanmcc commented Nov 7, 2013

From #42, we should also make sure that it's possible to stop the merge worker from doing anything before kv starts up, if possible in a generic way.

@evanmcc evanmcc modified the milestones: 2.1, 2.0 Mar 19, 2014
@slfritchie slfritchie modified the milestones: 2.0.1, 2.1 Mar 24, 2014
@evanmcc evanmcc modified the milestones: 2.0-RC, 2.0.1 May 12, 2014
@evanmcc
Copy link
Contributor Author

evanmcc commented May 12, 2014

Going to go ahead and close this, since I think that @engelsanchez's latest changes cover this one. @engelsanchez please reopen and move to 2.1 if there's still work to be done.

@evanmcc evanmcc closed this as completed May 12, 2014
@engelsanchez
Copy link
Contributor

I had left it open because my change doesn't address not calling needs merge outside of the merge window. But given that it sounds like a marginal optimization anyway, I'm fine with leaving this closed and re-open in the future if latency tuning says it should be changed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants