Replies: 3 comments
-
|
I've added a |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Ideas: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
socketry/falcon#101
Potential options:
Regarding connection management, there may be some minimum allowable number of persistent connections. If we add the time the connection was last used, we can also implement a metric for determining utilization. For example, if there are lots of small requests, which tend to overlap, we don't want to close those connections even if the usage is 0... because they will probably be used again in the future. You'd also want to return hot resources first... so that if your request volume drops, you will eventually close older connections.
The main concerns are the additional book keeping required (probably better to use
Async::Clock.nowfor monotonic elapsed time), and additionally the cost of additional book keeping (maybe a priority queue of resources from hot to cold).cc @tleish
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions