feature/115-adopt_put_single_pool #140
No reviewers
dstepanov-yadro
alexvanin
pogpp
Labels
No Label
P0
P1
P2
P3
good first issue
pool
Infrastructure
blocked
bug
config
discussion
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
go
help wanted
internal
invalid
kludge
observability
perfomance
question
refactoring
wontfix
No Milestone
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: TrueCloudLab/frostfs-sdk-go#140
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch "dkirillov/frostfs-sdk-go:feature/115-adopt_put_single_pool"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may exist for a short time before cleaning up, in most cases it CANNOT be undone. Continue?
close #115
Tests showed that using part buffer pool doesn't save memory a lot.
Especially on big parts.
Probably we can use pool only for small parts
after adding buffer in
payloadSizeLimiterUPD: PR is going to be merge into
masterWIP: feature/115-adopt_put_single_poolto WIP: feature/115-adopt_put_single_poolc2290454aato922b3411c5922b3411c5to2ec3f19647WIP: feature/115-adopt_put_single_poolto feature/115-adopt_put_single_pool2ec3f19647to875746a8a9feature/115-adopt_put_single_poolto feature/115-adopt_put_single_pool@ -0,0 +23,4 @@withoutHomomorphicHash bool}const defaultMaxPutSingleAttempts = 3If I didn't specify that I want to retry the request, then why will the SDK try to do this?
@ -0,0 +105,4 @@}func (it *internalTarget) WriteObject(ctx context.Context, o *object.Object) error {for i := 0; i < it.prm.maxAttempts; i++ {We should not try to repeat all the failed requests, and we also need to add backoff and jitter to do it correctly:
https://aws.amazon.com/ru/blogs/architecture/exponential-backoff-and-jitter/
Therefore, perhaps this is not necessary at all now.
Dropped retrying. Probably we can review approach in #25
875746a8a9to236d7e3886236d7e3886toe3fec9c7a2e3fec9c7a2to202412230a@ -713,0 +748,4 @@}if prm.payload != nil {const defaultBufferSizePut = 64 * 1024 // it's buffer size in s3-gw, configure?Should we create an issue for that?
#149