wrunderwood commented on pull request #96:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/96#issuecomment-853410595


   Anyone running this on a multi-CPU machine should disable it immediately.
   
   The documentation says it will reject traffic when total CPU usage reaches a 
limit, but it will really reject traffic when a single CPU reaches that limit 
or when one process is blocked on IO. The remaining CPUs will be idle.
   
   Whoever implemented this did not understand how the load average metric 
works.
   
   The current behavior is a bug and should not be used in production. Solr is 
not required to keep back compatibility with bugs.
   
   wunder
   Walter Underwood
   ***@***.***
   http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)
   
   > On Jun 2, 2021, at 1:23 PM, Atri Sharma ***@***.***> wrote:
   > 
   > 
   > Hi Christine,
   > 
   > Yes, merging the two circuit breakers makes sense as long as we separate 
out the configurations distinctly.
   > 
   > Alternative is to have the common code (and test code) in parent classes 
with both the circuit breakers and their infrastructure deriving from them.
   > 
   > Your point about back compatibility is important. At work, we use the CPU 
circuit breaker, and I am sure many other users do, too.
   > 
   > Renaming existing functionality will break that.
   > 
   > —
   > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
   > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
<https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/96#issuecomment-853358369>, or unsubscribe 
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACR4IIIMOEP5VQYUW5VEE6LTQ2HMRANCNFSM43T5FIZA>.
   > 
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to