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

Feature request: KAS processing threshold provided by AccountLimit #22

Conversation

stophane
Copy link

Starting with KIM 1.5 specification, the current threshold from which a KIM-Clientmodul processes received/large mail data by the defined 'KAS process' is fixed to 15 MiB. Any KIM mail smaller than 15 MiB must be processed 'normally'/fully by TI-Konnektor.

To mitigate the known performance & memory issues of the TI-Konnektor, it might be benefitial to allow a smaller, by all means, variable threshold from which the KIM-Clientmodul uses the 'KAS process' instead of processing large amounts of data by a TI-Konnektor.

Solution:
Extend AccountLimit by a property 'kasMailSizeThreshold', which allows a threshold between 1 MiB and 15 MiB (default). Currently any KIM-Clientmodul implementing KIM 1.5 specification must request the AccountLimit before sending a message.

Advantage:

  • This might increase the overall performance, e.g. by reducing the time required to send or receive KIM messages.
  • As the AccountLimit already implies account-wise information, a KIM provider is enabled to set a threshold account-wise or globally for any account.

Disadvantage:

  • A low threshold might result in more data stored on the KAS. This data isn´t explicitly managed by client´s or client software. Thus the on the KAS stored data is primarly managed through deletion by expiration (dataTimeToLive).

The KIM/KAS provider must decide/manage the threshold value, as the overall KAS performance and related storage management might be individual to each provider.

…reshold information to KIM-Clientmodul instances. If the amount of mail data surpasses this threshold, as KIM-Clientmodul must process the data by the defined 'kas process'.
@gem-cp gem-cp deleted the branch gematik:feature/KIM-1.5.3-changes,-OpenAPI April 12, 2023 06:28
@gem-cp gem-cp closed this Apr 12, 2023
@dhufnagel
Copy link
Contributor

Any explanation why this PR was closed without merging?

@gem-uku gem-uku reopened this Apr 12, 2023
@gem-uku gem-uku changed the base branch from feature/KIM-1.5.3-changes,-OpenAPI to develop April 12, 2023 12:27
@gem-uku gem-uku changed the base branch from develop to feature/KIM-1.5.3-changes,-OpenAPI April 12, 2023 12:33
@gem-uku
Copy link
Contributor

gem-uku commented Apr 12, 2023

merge is done directly to develop branche

@gem-uku gem-uku closed this Apr 12, 2023
@dhufnagel
Copy link
Contributor

I would appreciate doing a proper merge of the Pull requests next time, as it would honor the work of the people doing the actual work by mentioning them in the contributors list. A "manual merge" is not a good solution - imho.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants