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

Ignoring server values for SummaryConfiguration #9965

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Apr 21, 2022

Conversation

NicholasCouri
Copy link
Contributor

@NicholasCouri NicholasCouri commented Apr 19, 2022

Fix for #9948 - Ignoring the configuration values we get from the service for Summmary Configurations and
Adjusting the default values to match the current values we get from the service.

@NicholasCouri NicholasCouri requested a review from vladsud April 19, 2022 19:35
@NicholasCouri NicholasCouri requested review from a team as code owners April 19, 2022 19:35
@github-actions github-actions bot added area: driver Driver related issues area: runtime Runtime related issues base: main PRs targeted against main branch labels Apr 19, 2022
@agarwal-navin
Copy link
Contributor

agarwal-navin commented Apr 19, 2022

Why are we doing this? #9808 doesn't have info and the PR title / description doesn't talk about it either.


In reply to: 1103209578


In reply to: 1103209578


In reply to: 1103209578


In reply to: 1103209578

@vladsud
Copy link
Contributor

vladsud commented Apr 19, 2022

The right issue to link to is #9948


In reply to: 1103211098


In reply to: 1103211098


In reply to: 1103211098


In reply to: 1103211098

// Snapshot if 1000 ops received since last snapshot.
maxOps: 1000,
// Snapshot if 100 ops received since last snapshot.
maxOps: 100,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am curious why you chose 100? This means that we will now summarize 10 times more than before. Isn't that a big change?
Also, how do we measure this in order to tweak it? For example, if this results in very frequent summaries and slowing clients down, how will we know?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this be behind a feature flag so that we can revert this if it causes regression?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@NicholasCouri NicholasCouri Apr 19, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Vlad suggested 100 based on the telemetry data. The idea is that the consumers will still be able to override the values as they can today, via the config.
What Vlad wants is to take it away from the service. BTW 9948 is the one where he recommends the removal of the service dependency to track these numbers.
AFAIK Today they are hardcoded on the backend as well.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good. My concern is that this may results in client slowing down. We should have a plan if that happens and maybe updating the container runtime options to provide this info is the answer.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd prefer to split change into multiple PRs, with first one only getting rid of service-provided config by copying existing service config into client code. That way it will be so much easier to track what, when & why we changed over time

Copy link
Contributor Author

@NicholasCouri NicholasCouri Apr 20, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok. will revert all other changes and simply get rid of the service-provided config. Should I get the config values from office.com for instance? Not sure if they might be different.

@NicholasCouri
Copy link
Contributor Author

NicholasCouri commented Apr 19, 2022

Yes, it should be 9948 and there is some motivation for 100 on9808 (Vlads comments).


In reply to: 1103209578

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the area: driver Driver related issues label Apr 19, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@vladsud vladsud left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please fix description before merging

@NicholasCouri NicholasCouri requested a review from a team as a code owner April 21, 2022 01:43
@github-actions github-actions bot added the public api change Changes to a public API label Apr 21, 2022
@msfluid-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

msfluid-bot commented Apr 21, 2022

@fluid-example/bundle-size-tests: -625 Bytes
Metric NameBaseline SizeCompare SizeSize Diff
aqueduct.js 398.48 KB 398.36 KB -125 Bytes
containerRuntime.js 220.04 KB 219.92 KB -125 Bytes
loader.js 160.49 KB 160.49 KB No change
map.js 235.14 KB 235.01 KB -125 Bytes
matrix.js 323.04 KB 322.92 KB -125 Bytes
odspDriver.js 182.42 KB 182.42 KB No change
odspPrefetchSnapshot.js 77.23 KB 77.23 KB No change
sharedString.js 343.65 KB 343.53 KB -125 Bytes
Total Size 1.93 MB 1.93 MB -625 Bytes

Baseline commit: 14454f9

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 469dd41

@NicholasCouri NicholasCouri requested a review from a team as a code owner April 21, 2022 20:46
@github-actions github-actions bot added the area: dds Issues related to distributed data structures label Apr 21, 2022
summaryOptions: { initialSummarizerDelayMs: 0 },
summaryOptions: {
summaryConfigOverrides: {
idleTime: 5000, // Current default idleTime is 15000 which will cause some SharedTree tests to timeout.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: You could make this smaller still so the tests would run faster :-)

@NicholasCouri NicholasCouri merged commit 8385d59 into microsoft:main Apr 21, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area: dds Issues related to distributed data structures area: runtime Runtime related issues base: main PRs targeted against main branch
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants