Skip to content

QQ: Revise checkpointing logic to take more frequent checkpoints for large message workloads (backport #13587) #13621

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 26, 2025

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link

@mergify mergify bot commented Mar 26, 2025

Lower the min_checkpoint_interval substantially to allow quorum queues better control over when checkpoints are taken.

Tracking message bytes written to the log and use this to request a checkpoint every 64MB if no other checkpoint condition was met. This ensures that queues where the messages are very large (1MB+) are checkpointed based on their data ingress rather than indexes.


This is an automatic backport of pull request #13587 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

To take more frequent checkpoints for large message workload

Lower the min_checkpoint_interval substantially to allow quorum queues
better control over when checkpoints are taken.

Track bytes enqueued in the aux state and suggest a checkpoint after
every 64MB enqueued (this value is scaled according to backlog just
like the indexes condition).
This should help with more timely checkpointing when very large
messages is used.

Try evaluating byte size independently of time window

also increase max size

(cherry picked from commit 6695282)
@michaelklishin michaelklishin merged commit 338973d into v4.1.x Mar 26, 2025
273 checks passed
@michaelklishin michaelklishin deleted the mergify/bp/v4.1.x/pr-13587 branch March 26, 2025 12:37
michaelklishin added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 26, 2025
QQ: Revise checkpointing logic to take more frequent checkpoints for large message workloads (backport #13587) (backport #13621)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants