I did the backport a week ago. Now the logic for compaction is in storage.c, in ovsdb_storage_should_snapshot(). If you notice any significant behavioral changes in practice, let me know; I don't think that there should be any.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:21:32PM +0200, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote: > Hi Ben, > After [0] got merged the compaction code is not there anymore. How is this > being done > now? Also, can we get the backport of [1][2] to 2.9 branch? > > [0] > https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/commit/1b1d2e6daa563cc91f974ffdc082fb3a8b424801 > [1] > https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/commit/1cfdc175ab1ecbc8f5d22f78d8e5f4344d55c5dc#diff-62fba9ea73e44f70aa9f56228bd4658c > [2] > https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/commit/69f453713459c60e5619174186f94a0975891580 > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez <dalva...@redhat.com > > wrote: > > > Ok, I've just sent a patch and if you're not convinced we can > > just do the 2x change. Thanks a lot! > > Daniel > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > >> I guess I wouldn't object. > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:11:11PM +0100, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote: > >> > Thanks Ben and Mark. I'd be okay with 2x. > >> > Don't you think that apart from that it can still be good to compact > >> after > >> > a > >> > certain amount of time (like 1 day) if the number of transactions is > 0 > >> > regardless of the size? > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > > It would be trivial to change 4x to 2x. 4x was just the suggestion in > >> > > the Raft thesis. If 2x would make everyone a little more comfortable, > >> > > let's make that change. > >> > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
