Re: Good guy timers (was: Re: [friam] Timeouts considered harmful )

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Jed Donnelley <capability-iCFHVraI1K1Wk0Htik3J/[email protected]>wrote:

>
> The only reason timers (at least at the top level - there are some other
> issues at the bottom) are needed is to deal with resource issues.


There are also "dead man's switch" issues (e.g. if controlling a robot
through a web page). And some kinds of resources might be problematic if
kept around without a consumer (e.g. server-side video acquisition and
buffering is expensive, and buffers quickly become more so if not
consumed). Depends on the problem domain.


> We did have a "timeout" - that is a time after which we would consider
> recycling such threads before their processing was complete.  However,
> we only did so if they were needed for incoming requests.  The basic
> idea was that we had a trigger value (minimum number of available
> threads) below which we would look for threads to recycle.  We wouldn't
> consider any threads that hadn't yet reached their "timeout" value (in
> that case if we ran out of threads we would block incoming requests) and
> we would recycle others on an oldest first basis.
>

This is a nice approach, assuming relatively passive resources.

I've been contemplating a similar technique, albeit at the session state
layer (i.e. allowing old sessions to be resumed, but recycling those more
than a month old or so).


>
> friam/cap-talk
>

I hadn't heard of the friam google group. I guess I'll need to check it out.

_______________________________________________
cap-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk