Performance-Tuning enhancement proposal. #1540
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While I don't wish to add a field for every vector tuning option, I don't think we can capture all tuning in the way described here. I believe we are really going need to allow a user to explicitly define a parameter like blocking behavior or max events. I don't see any option other then explicit tuning and we have customers who are already experiencing this short fall
alanconway
force-pushed
the
performance-tuning
branch
from
b29f3f2
to
f958bd5
Compare
|
@jcantrill Great feedback, thanks. I'll have to do some re-writing to address it, see next push. |
alanconway
force-pushed
the
performance-tuning
branch
from
f958bd5
to
f3eba62
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jcantrill @periklis please check if I've addressed your concerns.
|
LGTM |
alanconway
force-pushed
the
performance-tuning
branch
from
f3eba62
to
3b064a8
Compare
|
#1555 is changing the enhancement template in a way that will cause the header check in the linter job to fail for existing PRs. If this PR is merged within the development period for 4.16 you may override the linter if the only failures are caused by issues with the headers (please make sure the markdown formatting is correct). If this PR is not merged before 4.16 development closes, please update the enhancement to conform to the new template. |
alanconway
force-pushed
the
performance-tuning
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e8e62c1
to
a530ea4
Compare
|
Hopefully final draft: updated to be compatible with the v2 API proposal and @jcantrill PRs using AtLeastOnce/AtMostOnce instead of fast/safe. With the new terms, everything is easier to explain and I've re-directed the focus to reliability rather than performance which fixes some of @cahartma concerns. I've also added a "fallback" position to force use of persistence as suggested by @kattz-kawa. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
alanconway
force-pushed
the
performance-tuning
branch
from
a530ea4
to
73623c3
Compare
|
/retest |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alanconway The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
/hold cancel |
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
@alanconway: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
Covers delivery reliability (log loss) and sundry output tuning (reconnect, compression, batching)
I'm happy that this proposal is usable and outlines a feasible implementation.