Agreed with Lin. I think we should try to abstract this into an interface and allow different implementations.
Rajan - what is your real concern making it abstract? - Sijie On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <lin...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Rajan, > Thank you for your PR. > The main difference lies in whether 10MB is enough and memory doubling > problem, which is caused by different business scenarios. > In some business scenario, the QPS of 20k/s is considered to be very low, > and requests exceeding this order of magnitude are common. > If it is only increased to 10MB, the time exceeding the threshold only > changes from 30 seconds to 60 seconds, and the problems in PIP are still > not solved. > "large enough" may be base on your scenario, and in some scenario, it is > not enough in most cases... > Because the problem has not been solved, I suggest to abstract, so that > different people can choose. > Your PR is an improvement to the current performance, there is no conflict > between them. > > Thanks > > On 2021/01/27 03:50:07, Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> wrote: > > I have created a PR which should allow brokers to store up to 10M > > unack-message ranges. I think it should be large enough for any usecases > > and probably now, we might not need to introduce abstraction for ack > > management to avoid any further complexity in message acknowledgement > path > > as well. > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/9292 > > > > Thanks, > > Rajan > >
