Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

vtgateproxy: add conn warmup time #465

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 24, 2024
Merged

Conversation

demmer
Copy link
Collaborator

@demmer demmer commented Jul 24, 2024

When there are a lot more targets than the number of connections in the pool, then it's possible that if the list of hosts changes, the builder might pick a totally new set of hosts than the previously selected ones, none of which will have established subconns.

Instead of giving this new list to the picker immediately, first combine it with the list of hosts that were previously selected, so that those subconns have some time to warm up while the current set is still in the list.

When there are a lot more targets than the number of connections in the pool,
then it's possible that if the list of hosts changes, the builder might pick a
totally new set of hosts than the previously selected ones, none of which will
have established subconns.

Instead of giving this new list to the picker immediately, first combine it
with the list of hosts that were previously selected, so that those subconns
have some time to warm up while the current set is still in the list.
// If we've already selected some targets, give the new addresses some time to warm up before removing
// the old ones from the list
if r.currentAddrs != nil && warmupTime.Seconds() > 0 {
combined := append(r.currentAddrs, addrs...)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Might be a good idea to de-duplicate and skip if there's nothing new in addrs.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure we could. I thought about that in the original implementation too but there's no real difference since that's basically what UpdateState is going to do under the covers.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(Ignoring the sleep of course, but I think that's ok since we shouldn't have no-op updates to the file).

@demmer demmer merged commit 6ee8654 into vtgateproxy Jul 24, 2024
151 of 241 checks passed
@demmer demmer deleted the vtgateproxy-conn-warmup-time branch July 24, 2024 14:48
dedelala pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 30, 2024
When there are a lot more targets than the number of connections in the pool,
then it's possible that if the list of hosts changes, the builder might pick a
totally new set of hosts than the previously selected ones, none of which will
have established subconns.

Instead of giving this new list to the picker immediately, first combine it
with the list of hosts that were previously selected, so that those subconns
have some time to warm up while the current set is still in the list.
dedelala pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 30, 2024
When there are a lot more targets than the number of connections in the pool,
then it's possible that if the list of hosts changes, the builder might pick a
totally new set of hosts than the previously selected ones, none of which will
have established subconns.

Instead of giving this new list to the picker immediately, first combine it
with the list of hosts that were previously selected, so that those subconns
have some time to warm up while the current set is still in the list.
dedelala pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2024
When there are a lot more targets than the number of connections in the pool,
then it's possible that if the list of hosts changes, the builder might pick a
totally new set of hosts than the previously selected ones, none of which will
have established subconns.

Instead of giving this new list to the picker immediately, first combine it
with the list of hosts that were previously selected, so that those subconns
have some time to warm up while the current set is still in the list.
dedelala pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 12, 2024
When there are a lot more targets than the number of connections in the pool,
then it's possible that if the list of hosts changes, the builder might pick a
totally new set of hosts than the previously selected ones, none of which will
have established subconns.

Instead of giving this new list to the picker immediately, first combine it
with the list of hosts that were previously selected, so that those subconns
have some time to warm up while the current set is still in the list.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants