On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 05:43:09PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > > I'm just an observer, and I may be confused, but it seems to me that this is > motion in the wrong direction (at least, it's not going to fix the actual > problem). As I understand the problem, once you reach a certain point, the > system slows down *every* 30.999 seconds. Now, it's possible for the code to > cause one slowdown as it cleans up, but why does it need to clean up so much > 31 seconds later? > > Why not find/fix the actual bug? Then work on getting the yield right if it > turns out there's an actual problem for it to fix. > > If the problem is that too much work is being done at a stretch and it turns > out this is because work is being done erroneously or needlessly, fixing > that should solve the whole problem. Doing the work that doesn't need to be > done more slowly is at best an ugly workaround. > > Or am I misunderstanding?
Yes, rewriting the syncer is the right solution. It probably cannot be done quickly enough. If the yield workaround provide mitigation for now, it shall go in.
pgp3M1L6AEdQW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
