[mapguide-internals] MapGuide RFC 65 - ACE 5.6 upgrade is ready for review

[Trevor Wekel]

Big giant locks would certainly affect multi-core scalability.  I know Bruce did a whole ton of work on the Fdo connection management in MapGuide to improve Gdal threading issues.  I don't know if the big giant lock went it.

Thanks,
Trevor  

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:15 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] MapGuide RFC 65 - ACE 5.6 upgrade is ready for review


While this is true, don't we also have the big giant lock in the code, which makes sure that if you have rasters for example (where I/O matters), you will only be working on one request at a time anyway?


Traian


-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Wekel
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:10 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] MapGuide RFC 65 - ACE 5.6 upgrade is ready for review

Yes.  Intel Nehalems are 4 core w/ hyperthreading and AMD Istanbuls are 6 core chips.  Both of these are available in two socket configuration and the AMD chips are also available in 4 and 8 socket configurations.  This brings the total concurrent "core" count to 12, 16, 24, or 48 depending on configuration.

If we assume a 24 "core" variant then the current WMFO reactor will only be able to supply two concurrent threads of work per core.  Depending on IO constraints, this may not be enough to fully utilize all of the CPU on these newer boxes.


Thanks,
Trevor


-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:52 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] MapGuide RFC 65 - ACE 5.6 upgrade is ready for review

That would be nice.  

Although the recent http connection fixes seem to have worked around the problems fairly well and reduced the number of hard failures for end users, I've noticed that in some cases a user's performance degrades considerably (hangs for N seconds) while waiting for connections that are inactive but still open to be closed properly.

It's also my understanding (from previous conversations) that some newer hardware can actually handle more than 62 connections worth of work, and that the current limitation would be artificially constraining the performance of these boxes.
 
Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Wekel
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:40 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] MapGuide RFC 65 - ACE 5.6 upgrade is ready for review

As part of the upgrade we may want to switch ACE on Windows to use either ACE_TP_Reactor or ACE_Select_Reactor instead of the ACE_WFMO_Reactor.  The WFMO reactor can only handle 62 concurrent connections whereas the TP and Select reactors can handle 1024 connections.
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals