synapse-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Message Forwarding Processor consumes all the messages at once
Date Thu, 28 May 2020 15:53:22 GMT
Hi All,

How about a property name as below? we can make it false by default which
would give us the current behaviour.

<parameter name="throttle.message.processing">true</parameter>

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:41 AM prabath <prabathmail@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to support both behaviors.
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:26 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafreen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vanji,
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:51 PM Vanjikumaran Sivajothy <
>> vanjikumaran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let’s consider the current behaviors as a default.
>>>
>>> Adding additional Optional property may control to make sure the
>>> backward comparability.
>>>
>>
>> Okay. We can add a new parameter, that way we can have both behaviors as
>> you mentioned.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 12:46 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafreen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Current behaviour of the Message Forwarding Processor is to consume all
>>>> the messages at once. For instance, say, the Message Forwarding Processor
>>>> is configured to run every 10 seconds and the Message store is filled with
>>>> 5 messages within the 10 second gap. In such a situation, Message
>>>> Forwarding Processor consumes all 5 messages and try to send it to back-end
>>>> as fast as possible. I think this behaviour is not optimal. The purpose of
>>>> Message Forwarding Processor it to send messages to the back-end in a
>>>> controlled rate. So that the back-end server can handle the load. IMO,
>>>> ideal behaviour should be to consume one message at a time and try to send
>>>> it to the back-end as per the configured interval.
>>>>
>>>> However, if the configured interval is a cron expression, in such cases
>>>> the current behaviour is correct. Because cron expressions could have very
>>>> large intervals.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, I think it is best to keep the current behaviour for cron
>>>> intervals but change it for normal intervals as aforementioned.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Shafreen
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Prabath Ariyarathna.
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message