Re: [infinispan-dev] Remoting package refactor

Hi Radim, no I haven't. However, you can replace the thread pools used by JGroups and use custom pools. I like another idea better: inject Byteman code at runtime that keeps track of this, and *other useful stats as well*. It would be very useful to support if we could ship a package to a customer that is injected into their running system and grabs all the vital stats we need for a few minutes, then removes itself again and those stats are then sent to use as a ZIP file. The good thing about byteman is that it can remove itself without a trace; ie. there's no overhead before / after running byteman. On 07/11/14 09:31, Radim Vansa wrote: > Btw., have you ever considered checks if a thread returns to pool > reasonably often? Some of the other datagrids use this, though there's > not much how to react upon that beyond printing out stack traces (but > you can at least report to management that some node seems to be broken). > > Radim > > On 11/07/2014 08:35 AM, Bela Ban wrote: >> That's exactly what I suggested. No config gives you a shared global >> thread pool for all caches. >> >> Those caches which need a separate pool can do that via configuration >> (and of course also programmatically) >> >> On 06/11/14 20:31, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >>> My opinion is that we should aim for less configuration, i.e. >>> threadpools should mostly have sensible defaults and be shared by >>> default unless there are extremely good reasons for not doing so. >>> >>> Tristan >>> >>> On 06/11/14 19:40, Radim Vansa wrote: >>>> I second the opinion that any threadpools should be shared by default. >>>> There are users who have hundreds or thousands of caches and having >>>> separate threadpool for each of them could easily drain resources. And >>>> sharing resources is the purpose of threadpools, right? >>>> >>>> Radim >>>> >>>> On 11/06/2014 04:37 PM, Bela Ban wrote: >>>>> #1 I would by default have 1 thread pool shared by all caches >>>>> #2 This global thread pool should be configurable, perhaps in the >>>>> <global> section ? >>>>> #3 Each cache by default uses the gobal thread pool >>>>> #4 A cache can define its own thread pool, then it would use this one >>>>> and not the global thread pool >>>>> >>>>> I think this gives you a mixture between ease of use and flexibility in >>>>> configuring pool per cache if needed >>>>> >>>>> On 06/11/14 16:23, Pedro Ruivo wrote: >>>>>> On 11/06/2014 03:01 PM, Bela Ban wrote: >>>>>>> On 06/11/14 15:36, Pedro Ruivo wrote: >>>>>>>> * added a single thread remote executor service. This will handle the >>>>>>>> FIFO deliver commands. Previously, they were handled by JGroups incoming >>>>>>>> threads and with a new executor service, each cache can process their >>>>>>>> own FIFO commands concurrently. >>>>>>> +1000. This allows multiple updates from the same sender but to >>>>>>> different caches to be executed in parallel, and will speed thing up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you intend to share a thread pool between the invocations handlers of >>>>>>> the various caches, or do they each have their own thread pool ? Or is >>>>>>> this configurable ? >>>>>>> >>>>>> That is question that cross my mind and I don't have any idea what would >>>>>> be the best. So, for now, I will leave the thread pool shared between >>>>>> the handlers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Never thought to make it configurable, but maybe that is the best >>>>>> option. And maybe, it should be possible to have different max-thread >>>>>> size per cache. For example: >>>>>> >>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will share the same instance >>>>>> <remote-executor name="shared" shared="true" max-threads=4.../> >>>>>> >>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will create their own thread >>>>>> pool with max-threads equals to 1 >>>>>> <remote-executor name="low-throughput-cache" shared="false" >>>>>> max-threads=1 .../> >>>>>> >>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will create their own thread >>>>>> pool with max-threads equals to 1000 >>>>>> <remote executor name="high-throughput-cache" shared="false" >>>>>> max-thread=1000 .../> >>>>>> >>>>>> is this what you have in mind? comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Pedro >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> > > -- Bela Ban, JGroups lead (http://www.jgroups.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev