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

Support creating realms in "pure" in-memory mode #5991

Closed
astigsen opened this issue Nov 3, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #6246
Closed

Support creating realms in "pure" in-memory mode #5991

astigsen opened this issue Nov 3, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #6246
Assignees

Comments

@astigsen
Copy link
Contributor

astigsen commented Nov 3, 2022

Currently Core supports an in-memory mode, but it still temporarily uses a backing memory mapped file (it just never explicitly syncs it to disk). It does this so that multiple processes can concurrently work on the same in-memory dataset.

This is generally a good thing, but for running under wasm, memory mapped files become very problematic, and there is no need for multi-process support there anyways. So it would be very useful to support a "pure" in-memory mode that uses regular allocations rather than memory mappings.

@jedelbo jedelbo mentioned this issue Nov 17, 2022
3 tasks
@sync-by-unito
Copy link

sync-by-unito bot commented Dec 12, 2022

➤ bmunkholm commented:

Waiting for feedback from Nabil before progressing further.

@sync-by-unito
Copy link

sync-by-unito bot commented Dec 15, 2022

➤ nhachicha commented:

[~brian.munkholm@mongodb.com]  I exchanged with [~jorgen.edelbo@mongodb.com]  already on slack, I think the PR is ready to be merged. The C-API tests passing on WASM are based on this branch. There are a couple of issues (https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/RJS-2049  https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/RJS-2046 and https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/RJS-2048) still, but in my opinion, are unrelated to this in-memory branch... 

Also, can you share your thoughts on #6022 (comment) ?

@sync-by-unito
Copy link

sync-by-unito bot commented Dec 15, 2022

➤ bmunkholm commented:

The changes are pretty many, although most are simple, but before merging I think this needs detailed reviews and tests to avoid regressions for file based use.

@jedelbo jedelbo mentioned this issue Jan 30, 2023
3 tasks
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 21, 2024
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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants