On 18 September 2015 at 10:43, Markus Schaber <m.schaber_at_codesys.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Von: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:ivan_at_visualsvn.com]
>> On 17 September 2015 at 21:53, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> I think now is good moment to discuss whether we should merge
>> >> ra-reuse-session [1] branch to trunk or not: it's better to merge
>> >> such branch in the beginning of release cycle, to have more time to
>> >> test and dogfood.
>> >
>> > +1 to merge.
>> >
>> >> Cons:
>> >> - In makes behavior less stable. RA session pool doesn't reuse
>> >> sessions that was unused for some time to avoid timeout issues
>> >> - There is the chance that we will try to reuse 'broken' RA session
>> >> due the bug and operation will fail
>> >
>> > Do you have a plan to fix this?
>> I don't have specific to fix bug that didn't happen. But if we got one we
>> have two directions:
>> - Do not release RA session back to pool in specific case where we get it
>> broken
>> - Make RA session more resilent to errors. There is no reason why ra_svn
>> cannot reconnect after TCP connection times out or something.
>>
>> > Detect the error from a broken RA
>> > session and create another? Track the time when the session was last
>> > used? Something else?
>> >
>> Current implementation tracks last time when session was used and do not
>> reuse RA sessions that was inactive for 5 minutes.
>
> I created some of my own session reuse logic for the SharpSVN "SvnRemoteSession"
> which is a wrapper around the RA sessions. For "connectionless" sessions like http(s),
> I just reuse them, while for "connection" sessions (svn:// and especially svn+ssh://), is
> end a small "ping" in form of an "stat" request to validate that the session is still
> active. This gives me a high reliability, and a huge speedup over creating a new
> session (especially for ssh connections), but still have the guarantee that I won't
> hand out sessions which are totally broken.
>
> Maybe some similar scheme can be used here, possibly with a small time period
> after last successful usage where the revalidation may be skipped.
>
Interesting proposal, but I think should not be used for validating
since it may generate false authorization log records. I also think we
should skip revalidation if session was inactive for short period:
otherwise we end up with optimizing obtaining/releasing sessions to
save revalidation round-trip.
The best option would be incorporate all this logic to RA session
itself: RA session knows all internal details and may issue OPTIONS
request for example to validate connection state and open new
connection on error. But I think all of this can be implemented in
trunk.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2015-09-19 11:58:47 CEST