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

Add support for {max_uses, integer()} to persistent connections #80

Open
norton opened this issue Nov 13, 2012 · 6 comments
Open

Add support for {max_uses, integer()} to persistent connections #80

norton opened this issue Nov 13, 2012 · 6 comments

Comments

@norton
Copy link
Contributor

norton commented Nov 13, 2012

I'd like to compare the performance difference between setting non-default garbage collection settings (via worker_process_options) and simply closing a persistent connection after N uses. Generally speaking, I'm expecting the latter to be better if closing a persistent connection results in exiting of the connection's worker process and creating a new process.

Before attempting to implement this feature, I would like to hear if you have any thoughts and/or existing experience with such a feature.

@cmullaparthi
Copy link
Owner

This would be an interesting test to do. I have heard about performance
degradation when having persistent connections, so it would be good option
to have.

On 13 November 2012 07:07, Joseph Wayne Norton notifications@github.comwrote:

I'd like to compare the performance difference between setting non-default
garbage collection settings (via worker_process_options) and simply closing
a persistent connection after N uses. Generally speaking, I'm expecting the
latter to be better if closing a persistent connection results in exiting
of the connection's worker process and creating a new process.

Before attempting to implement this feature, I would like to hear if you
have any thoughts and/or existing experience with such a feature.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/80.

@norton
Copy link
Contributor Author

norton commented Nov 14, 2012

I'm also wondering if support for {max_heap_size, integer()} might be effective too?

This limit could be compared against the worker's total_heap_size.

  {total_heap_size, Size}:
  Size is the total size in words of all heap fragments of the process. This currently include the stack of the process.

@cmullaparthi
Copy link
Owner

It is worth a try in my opinion.

On 14 November 2012 01:29, Joseph Wayne Norton notifications@github.comwrote:

I'm also wondering if support for {max_heap_size, integer()} might be
effective too?

This limit could be compared against the worker's total_heap_size.

{total_heap_size, Size}:
Size is the total size in words of all heap fragments of the process. This currently include the stack of the process.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/80#issuecomment-10351684.

@benjaminplee
Copy link
Contributor

Was any work ever done on this? If not, I will take a crack at it; it would be useful for managing some of our long running connections and balancing of work.

@cmullaparthi
Copy link
Owner

Not that I'm aware of. It would be great if you can take a look.

@benjaminplee
Copy link
Contributor

I have begun work on this on the here: benjaminplee/ibrowse@2b075b8 off of the max_requests branch. Work was done as a quick spike without tests so far to vet the implementation against our test server.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants