From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 875591FF16F
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:19:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 425666526;
Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:19:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:19:31 +0100
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <tioielukadqvyajbzi5444is2eycwapzrn6d6pl5pndbxono6y@utdkmguj6v6l>
References: <20250211120541.163621-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<20250211120541.163621-11-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
<kpzd2j2hmms6nkugixdagifikc3mii5hyqj66ofic7wsxztv7h@losm6xjj4cqi>
<f617ae45-f205-4dca-a3b3-7febb924e67b@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f617ae45-f205-4dca-a3b3-7febb924e67b@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.082 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pdm-devel] [PATCH proxmox-datacenter-manager 10/25] metric
collection: collect overdue metrics on startup/timer change
X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion
<pdm-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pdm-devel>,
<mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pdm-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel>,
<mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion
<pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pdm-devel" <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 02:50:32PM +0100, Lukas Wagner wrote:
>
>
> On 2025-02-13 09:55, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> >> loop {
> >> let old_settings = self.settings.clone();
> >> tokio::select! {
> >> @@ -124,7 +132,12 @@ impl MetricCollectionTask {
> >> "metric collection interval changed to {} seconds, reloading timer",
> >> interval
> >> );
> >> - timer = Self::setup_timer(interval);
> >> + (timer, next_run) = Self::setup_timer(interval);
> >> + // If change (and therefore reset) our timer right before it fires,
> >> + // we could potentially miss one collection event.
> >
> > Couldn't we instead just pass `next_run` through to `setup_timer` and
> > call `reset_at(next_run)` on it? (`first_run` would only be used in the
> > initial setup, so `next_run` could either be an `Option`, or the setup
> > code does the `next_aligned_instant` call...
> >
> > This should be much less code by making the new
> > `fetch_overdue{,_and_save_sate}()` functions unnecessary, or am I
> > missing something?
> >
>
> I guess the question is, do we want nicely aligned timer ticks?
>
> e.g. 14:01:00, 14:02:00, 14:03:00 ... for 60 second interval
> or 14:00:00, 14:05:00, 14:10:00 ... for a 5 minute interval?
>
> Because that was the main intention behind using the 'collection-interval' as
> a base for calculating the aligned instant for the first timer reset.
> If we reuse the 'old' `next_run` when the interval is changed, we
> also reuse the old alignment.
>
> For instance, when changing from initially 1 minute to 5 minutes, the
> timer ticks might come at
> 14:01:00, 14:06:00, 14:11:00
>
> Technically, the naming for the `next_run` variable is not the best,
> since it just contains the Instant when the timer *first* fires, but
> this is then never updated to the *next* time the timer will fire...
> So that means that when changing the interval with your suggested change,
> you'd pass an Instant to `reset_at` that is already in the past,
> causing the timer to fire immediately.
>
> If we *don't* care about the aligned ticks as described above, we could
> just use a static alignment boundary, e.g. 60 seconds.
> In this case we can also get rid of the fetch_overdue stuff, since
> at worst case we have 60 seconds until the next tick on startup or timer change,
> which should be good enough to prevent any significant gaps in the data.
What about setting a flag - if the current next tick was earlier than
the new next tick - to tell tick() to re-align the timer when it is next
triggered?
So when going from 1 to 5 minutes at 14:01:50, we `.reset_at(14:02:00)`
and also set `realign = true`, and at 14:02, tick() should
`.reset_at(14:05:00)`.
I just feel like the logic in the "fetch_overdue" code should not be
necessary to have, but if it's too awkward to handle via the tick timer,
it's fine to keep it in v2.
_______________________________________________
pdm-devel mailing list
pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel