I'm also +1 on cutting a new branch from master. On the recbuf issue, I'm in favour of option 1. I can't remember - would that allow us to get rid of the mochiweb RECBUF_SIZE define as well? The fewer magic numbers, the better.
Nick On 28 March 2014 14:18, Andy Wenk <a...@nms.de> wrote: > Dave great summary - thanks. I am +1 on recutting from master > > > On 28 March 2014 15:08, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks for summarising this from IRC Dave. Model ASF behaviour. :) > > > > I am +1 for re-cutting from master, unless there's some specific > > technical reason not to do so. > > > > On 28 March 2014 14:52, Garren Smith <gar...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I can't comment on what to do w.r.t the socket issue. But I'm +1 for > > cutting a new branch for 1.6 > > > > > > > > > On 28 Mar 2014, at 3:39 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <d...@jsonified.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi folks, > > >> > > >> In this week's IRC meeting we discussed what's up with 1.6.0. While > the > > decision > > >> rests with the Release Manager djc@ it's worth discussing. > > >> > > >> # Blockers > > >> > > >> We have 1 blocker, > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1986and the > > >> fix is simply setting the tcp receive buffer size to 32786, or 4x the > > previous > > >> value. > > >> > > >> Exactly why this is a now a problem and wasn't before is not clear, > but > > in > > >> a couple of weeks of fiddling we've not come up with a better > solution, > > and > > >> nobody's found other issues as a result of it. > > >> > > >> In the meeting we put forward 3 options for how to include this fix in > > the > > >> source: > > >> > > >> 1. uncomment the equivalent line in default.ini > > >> > > >> socket_options = [{recbuf, 262144}, {sndbuf, 262144}, {nodelay, > > true}] > > >> > > >> 2. update the default value directly in /src/mochiweb/internal.hrl > > >> > > >> -define(RECBUF_SIZE, 8192 * 4). > > >> > > >> 3. change the specific setting only for the replication tests > > >> > > >> This boils down to "have people been seeing this in the real world?" > > and the > > >> answer is yes, with pretty severe impact. > > >> > > >> Please pick one! > > >> > > >> # Patch 1.6.x branch or update to current master > > >> > > >> Personally I'm undecided on this, master has 180 further commits , esp > > >> Fauxton, and also a few other important ones. These could be cherry > > picked > > >> but is there any reason not to cut a new 1.6.x off current master > > instead? > > >> I've no real view of the actual work involved BTW, so please educate > me. > > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/compare/1.6.x...master > > >> > > >> Comments? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Dave Cottlehuber > > >> Sent from my PDP11 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Noah Slater > > https://twitter.com/nslater > > > > > > -- > Andy Wenk > Hamburg - Germany > RockIt! > > http://www.couchdb-buch.de > http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de > > GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588 > > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc >
