Hi Ben, This is supported only in 2.0-M2. Lvc@
ᐧ On 23 September 2014 21:03, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Christian, > > Tried your suggestion too on 1.7.9, unfortunately it hasn't had any > influence even though it looked promising. > > Regards, > - Ben > > > On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:48:00 AM UTC+2, Christian Laakmann wrote: >> >> Hi all, Luca, >> >> it seems as if you wait for synchronous responses from _all_ available >> Nodes, even if quorum is set to 0. In >> ODistributedResponseManager#collectResponse, >> this code handles the notification of waiting threads after all expected >> responses have been received. >> >> if (receivedResponses >= expectedSynchronousResponses && >> (!waitForLocalNode || receivedCurrentNode)) { >> if (completed || isMinimumQuorumReached(false)) { >> // NOTIFY TO THE WAITER THE RESPONSE IS COMPLETE NOW >> notifyWaiters(); >> } >> } >> >> My expectation would be, that #isMinimumQuorumReached() were called as >> part of the first IF, i.e.: >> >> if (completed >> || isMinimumQuorumReached(false) >> || (receivedResponses >= expectedSynchronousResponses && >> (!waitForLocalNode || receivedCurrentNode))) { >> // NOTIFY TO THE WAITER THE RESPONSE IS COMPLETE NOW >> notifyWaiters(); >> } >> >> From my understanding, this would notify the waiting thread that pushed >> the task as soon as the quorum is reached or all responses from the >> available nodes have been collected. >> >> Cheers, >> Christian >> >> >> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 00:58:55 UTC+2, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Hi Luca, >>> >>> Since I've been hung out to dry, I've toyed around with the orientdb >>> sources. I was able to establish that the bottlenecks are indeed >>> sendRequest and send2Nodes. Removing sleeps in the latest 1.7.9 release >>> already provided a 50% improvement (From ~1.2sec down to ~0.55sec.). >>> Clearly we have different views on what is asynchronous. In your methods, >>> you inarguably wait for a response from the nodes before giving a response >>> to the client. IMHO asynchronous replication should update the local >>> database, respond to the client and care about the rest later. I believe >>> the replication methodology needs a rethink. Whilst in may be suitable to >>> LAN environments, it is certainly not suitable for WAN. I still wonder if >>> this is intended or even if it has ever been tested. I see examples with >>> europe and usa nodes with sharding, etc.. but I can't believe such delays >>> are accepted or the norm. Other technologies can do it, so should OrientDB. >>> >>> Anyway, enough of my ramblings.... Have a good evening. >>> >>> Regards, >>> - Ben >>> >> -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OrientDB" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OrientDB" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
