[SERVER-41006] Make replbatchlimitbytes configurable Created: 03/May/19 Updated: 29/Oct/23 Resolved: 10/May/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Replication |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 4.0.10, 4.1.12 |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Judah Schvimer | Assignee: | Tess Avitabile (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Fully Compatible | ||||||||||||
| Backport Requested: |
v4.0
|
||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Repl 2019-05-20 | ||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||
| Description |
|
This could be used to make the batch size a function of the size of the wired tiger cache. The constant is set here. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 10/May/19 ] |
|
Author: {'email': 'tess.avitabile@mongodb.com', 'name': 'Tess Avitabile', 'username': 'tessavitabile'}Message: (cherry picked from commit 887e13622f1e3ffecefbed4f42bae62666680ee4) |
| Comment by Githook User [ 10/May/19 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Tess Avitabile', 'username': 'tessavitabile', 'email': 'tess.avitabile@mongodb.com'}Message: |
| Comment by Githook User [ 09/May/19 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Siyuan Zhou', 'username': 'visualzhou', 'email': 'siyuan.zhou@mongodb.com'}Message: Revert " This reverts commit e0726e830cca9f4971722616eeb24b56321fe4b8. |
| Comment by Githook User [ 08/May/19 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Tess Avitabile', 'username': 'tessavitabile', 'email': 'tess.avitabile@mongodb.com'}Message: |
| Comment by Kelsey Schubert [ 06/May/19 ] |
|
I think we should just make it configurable, run some tests, and save discussion about defaults for a later time. |
| Comment by Tess Avitabile (Inactive) [ 06/May/19 ] |
|
alyson.cabral and kelsey.schubert, I will be doing this work. I was also curious–if we only want to fix this on Atlas, then Atlas can configure replbatchlimitbytes based on the instance size and configuration. Do you think that would be better or worse than having the server set a default replbatchlimitbytes based on the WT cache size and dirty cache eviction threshold? |