> On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Alan Carroll
> wrote:
>
> We're testing this in production now, although cautiously. I think it
> important to note the VC migration is conceptual, not actual. As noted in the
> original proposal on the wiki the important bits are removed from the old VC
> and
We're testing this in production now, although cautiously. I think it important
to note the VC migration is conceptual, not actual. As noted in the original
proposal on the wiki the important bits are removed from the old VC and put in
the new VC, the latter then being thread local.
On F
I agree with Leif as well - the "cost" in constantly reshuffling VC's across
threads may outweigh the extra latency in using per-thread pool. If we do not
want cross-thread communication, it seems like using per-thread pool is a more
cleaner solution. Would it makes sense to spend time to invest
It's unclear to me that you wouldn't get better NUMA affinity with the
migration. The logic spends much more time messing with the IOBuffers than with
the socket buffers and if the socket is migrated the IOBuffers will be thread
local whereas currently they are not. That is, IOBuffers for server
On 7/24/2015 2:11 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:16 AM, Susan Hinrichs
wrote:
Hello,
Another latent cross-thread race condition has become very active in our
environment (TS-3797). Given that we just spent time within the last month
squashing another cross thread race con
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:16 AM, Susan Hinrichs
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Another latent cross-thread race condition has become very active in our
>>> environment
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:16 AM, Susan Hinrichs
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Another latent cross-thread race condition has become very active in our
>> environment (TS-3797). Given that we just spent time within the last month
>> s
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:16 AM, Susan Hinrichs
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Another latent cross-thread race condition has become very active in our
> environment (TS-3797). Given that we just spent time within the last month
> squashing another cross thread race condition (TS-3486) that was acti
Hello,
Another latent cross-thread race condition has become very active in our
environment (TS-3797). Given that we just spent time within the last
month squashing another cross thread race condition (TS-3486) that was
active in several environments, Alan and I would like to step back and
t
