Stashing fix #1480
Merged
Stashing fix #1480
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ public void ConsistentHashingGroup_must_use_same_hash_ring_indepenent_of_self_ad | |||
| var keys = new List<string>(new [] { "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F", "G"}); | |||
| var result1 = keys.Select(k => consistentHash1.NodeFor(k).Routee); | |||
| var result2 = keys.Select(k => consistentHash2.NodeFor(k).Routee); | |||
| result1.ShouldBeEquivalentTo(result2); | |||
| Assert.Equal(result2,result1); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ignore this line, this is a fix for the broken dev branch.
|
We could ofcourse just replace the counter with a bool, but that would make a weird coupling between the actorcell and the stashing plugin. |
|
Looks like this build crashed on running the normal Xunit assemblies. Going to re-run it and see if we can reproduce. LOOKS like it choked out on an Akka.Remote test, but can't say for certain. Might have moved on and started running another assembly after that last error message. |
|
Need some code review on this cc @akkadotnet/contributors |
@rogeralsing I think the decoupled design you have now has better conceptual integrity, so I like your current approach |
|
Could you provide some before/after benchmarks on that? |
|
Benchmarks on the single |
|
@rogeralsing consequences may not end up on a single line ;) After all, change from |
|
Original code, no fix applied
Code from this PR (and no they are not mixed up and the new code is not actually faster than the old, its just error margins :P ) Providing a benchmark in code would be problematic as that would require that we add conditional compilation directives to enable/disable the stash fix |
|
Related #1489 |
This was referenced Dec 6, 2015
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a suggestion on how to solve the stashing #1400 issue
The mechanics in this PR works by incrementing an envelopeId in the actorcell for each user message received.
Once you call
Stashthe stash plugin will check if it has already stashed this envelope Id.This has minimal impact on performance and we can still keep our envelopes as structs.
The solution is also unaffected by async await features as the envelope ID is only touched when processing user messages.
Thoughts?