On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Robert Newson wrote: > I'm -1 on the approach (as I understand it) taken by the scheduler as > it will be problematic in precisely the circumstance when you'd most > want auto compaction (large numbers of databases and views).
As Filipe mentions in the ticket, this was tested with large numbers of databases. In addition, your "most want" assumption doesn't hold for the average user, I'd wager (no numbers, alas). I'd say it's a basic user-experience plus that a software doesn't start wasting a system resource without cleaning up after itself. But this isn't even suggesting to enable this by default. We have plenty of other features that need proper documentation to be used correctly and that we are improving over time to make them more obvious by removing common errors or odd behaviour. > To this point "Just curious, would it make a big difference to commit > the patch before srcmv and migrate it with the rest of the code base > rather than letting it rot in JIRA and leave it all to Filipe to keep > it updated." -- I'm -∞ on any suggestion that code should be put in > trunk to stop it from rotting. Code should land when it's ready. I > hope we're all agreed on that and that this paragraph was redundant. I was suggesting that the the patch is ready enough for trunk and that the level of readiness should not be "solves all possible cases". Especially for something that is disabled by default. If we take this to the extreme, we'd never add any new features. I'm not suggesting "it compiles for me, lets throw it into trunk". > After srcmv, and then some work to OTP-ify each of the resultant > subdirs, we should add this as a separate application. We might also > mark it as beta in the first release to gather feedback from the > community. I don't see how that is any different from adding it before srcmv and avoiding leaving the front-porting effort to a single person. Ideally we'd already have srcmv done, but we don't and I don't want to hold off progress for an architecture change. > I'll be accused of 'stop energy' within nanoseconds of this post so I > should end by saying I'm +1 on couchdb gaining the ability to > automatically compact its databases and views in principle. :) Cheers Jan -- > > B. > > On 16 August 2011 13:19, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> Good points Robert, >> >> I replied inline and then hijacked the thread for a more general discussion, >> sorry about that :) >> >> On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Robert Dionne wrote: >> >>> Filipe, >>> >>> This is neat, I can definitely see the utility of the approach. I do share >>> the concerns expressed in other comments with respect to the use of the >>> config file for per db compaction specs and the use of a compact_loop that >>> waits on config change messages when the ets table is empty. I don't think >>> it fully takes into account the use case of large numbers of small dbs >>> and/or some very large dbs interspersed with a lot of mid-size dbs. >> >> As I seid in the ticket, per-db config is desirable, but I think outside of >> the scope of the ticket. >> >>> Anyway I like it a lot though I've only read the code for 1/2 and hour or >>> so. I also agree with others that the code base is reaching a point of >>> being a bit crufty and it might be a good time with the git migration, >>> etc.. to take a breath and commit to making some of these OTP compliant >>> changes and design changes we've talked about. >> >> Just curious, would it make a big difference to commit the patch before >> srcmv and migrate it with the rest of the code base rather than letting it >> rot in JIRA and leave it all to Filipe to keep it updated. >> >> I also fear that a srcmv'd release is still out a bit and I'd really like to >> see this one (and a few others) go into 1.2 (as per my previous mail to this >> list in another thread). While it isn't the absolute perfect solution in all >> cases, it is disabled by default and manual compaction strategies work as >> they did before. In the meantime, we can refine the rest of the system to >> make it more fully fledged and maybe even enable it by default a few >> versions down when we are all comfortable with it. I'm not very comfortable >> keeping good patches in JIRA and not trunk until they solve every little >> edge case. We haven't worked like this in the past and I don't think it is >> worth doing. >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 15, 2011, at 9:29 PM, Filipe David Manana wrote: >>> >>>> Developers, users, >>>> >>>> It's been a while now since I opened a Jira ticket for it ( >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1153 ). >>>> I won't describe it here with detail since it's already done in the Jira >>>> ticket. >>>> >>>> Unless there are objections, I would like to get this moving soon. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Filipe David Manana, >>>> fdman...@gmail.com, fdman...@apache.org >>>> >>>> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. >>>> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. >>>> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." >>> >> >>
