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

feat: allocate rx buffer #1768

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

wyfo
Copy link
Contributor

@wyfo wyfo commented Feb 12, 2025

No description provided.

@wyfo wyfo marked this pull request as draft February 12, 2025 10:23
Copy link

PR missing one of the required labels: {'documentation', 'internal', 'dependencies', 'breaking-change', 'new feature', 'bug', 'enhancement'}

@wyfo wyfo added the internal Changes not included in the changelog label Feb 12, 2025
@wyfo wyfo force-pushed the feat/read_buffer_allocation branch from 6790979 to 15f661e Compare February 12, 2025 13:36
@wyfo wyfo marked this pull request as ready for review February 12, 2025 19:03
/// For very high throughput scenarios, the rx_buffer_size can be increased to accommodate
/// more in-flight data. This is particularly relevant when dealing with large messages.
/// E.g. for 16MiB rx_buffer_size set the value to: 16777216.
buffer_size: 65535,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we keep the config and mark it not available instead of removing it?
I'm not sure how much we want to maintain compatibility.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Don't know honestly. But this config is misleading, it's not a question of buffer size but of a number of batches, and the only case where more than one batch will be used is when a payload is cloned in a subscriber (e.g. a channel subscriber), so it's not the case for router for example.
So user may be tempted to increase the "buffer size" for a router with big traffic, but it will just allocate more unused memory.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
internal Changes not included in the changelog
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants