pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] speed pmie startup

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] speed pmie startup
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:17:28 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Lukas Berk <lberk@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5536CD81.1070008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <852862416.3748569.1429589380945.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <5536CD81.1070008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: hgvpirBU1bYBkw5CNCvbomL2gprdAg==
Thread-topic: speed pmie startup
Hi Ken,

----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> But I can guess ... there was some initial concerns about pmie's fetch
> scheduling getting behind, so fetchs are scheduled to happen at some
> time that has already passed, and adding some arbitrary slop in the
> start up gave a chance to parse the config file and get set up before
> the first fetch.
> 
> But we've done considerable work in the interim to improve the general
> handling of the "scheduling getting behind" situation, so I don't think
> the +1sec is needed at all ... so I'd suggest dropping the first +
> 0.000000001 and the while second block if (!archives) { ... } can also go.

OK, will verify that & update.

> I just tried this, but there are other QA failures (from -g pmie),
> namely 260 and 518 ... 260 looks like it would be OK with some tweaking,
> but I'm not sure about 518.

The 518 fix was in the original patch, but 260 hasn't been failing here at
all so far - can you send me the .bad file?

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>