From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prserv/db: Avoid fsync() calls
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 21:46:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1399409216.31891.4.camel@ted> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53651583.5000708@windriver.com>
On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 09:12 -0700, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 5/3/14, 3:18 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > If the power were to fail, it doesn't matter to us much if the data
> > makes it to disk or not, we'd have other problems. However an fsync()
> > call on a multi build autobuilder is painful so lets avoid them.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/bitbake/lib/prserv/db.py b/bitbake/lib/prserv/db.py
> > index 86eafe3..49f36da 100644
> > --- a/bitbake/lib/prserv/db.py
> > +++ b/bitbake/lib/prserv/db.py
> > @@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ class PRData(object):
> > raise e
> > self.connection=sqlite3.connect(self.filename, isolation_level="EXCLUSIVE", check_same_thread = False)
> > self.connection.row_factory=sqlite3.Row
> > + self.connection.execute("pragma synchronous = off;")
> > self._tables={}
> >
> > def __del__(self):
> >
> >
>
> Does the prserver make any noticeable difference? This may be the one case
> where I could see an fsync being desired. If you are serving remote machines,
> once you've requested a PR, the number should be stored to disk so that it will
> be the same one that comes back again. ... but I can easily see that in the
> middle of a build, when the PR server is on the same machine (and not shared)
> this could cause enough slow down to justify turning off the fsync.
Our default use case is that of the same machine and yes, these fsyncs
do made a difference in that workload for things like UI interaction
too. I stumbled into this wondering why my build wasn't starting and the
IO maxed out which made me look further.
I understand the issue of the remote server needing to write to disk
however even if its not on disk, it will be in sync with any other
questions due to the locking so it is just a power interruption issue
and I'm therefore less worried about it in most of the use cases we see
this used in.
Cheers,
Richard
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-06 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-03 10:18 [PATCH] prserv/db: Avoid fsync() calls Richard Purdie
2014-05-03 16:12 ` Mark Hatle
2014-05-06 20:46 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1399409216.31891.4.camel@ted \
--to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=mark.hatle@windriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.