other fixes / improvements:
- LUA script memory isn't taken from zmalloc (taken from libc malloc)
so it can cause high fragmentation ratio to be displayed (which is false)
- there was a problem with "fragmentation" info being calculated from
RSS and used_memory sampled at different times (now sampling them together)
other details:
- adding a few more allocator info fields to INFO and MEMORY commands
- improve defrag test to measure defrag latency of big keys
- increasing the accuracy of the defrag test (by looking at real grag info)
this way we can use an even lower threshold and still avoid false positives
- keep the old (total) "fragmentation" field unchanged, but add new ones for spcific things
- add these the MEMORY DOCTOR command
- deduct LUA memory from the rss in case of non jemalloc allocator (one for which we don't "allocator active/used")
- reduce sampling rate of the rss and allocator info
other fixes / improvements:
- LUA script memory isn't taken from zmalloc (taken from libc malloc)
so it can cause high fragmentation ratio to be displayed (which is false)
- there was a problem with "fragmentation" info being calculated from
RSS and used_memory sampled at different times (now sampling them together)
other details:
- adding a few more allocator info fields to INFO and MEMORY commands
- improve defrag test to measure defrag latency of big keys
- increasing the accuracy of the defrag test (by looking at real grag info)
this way we can use an even lower threshold and still avoid false positives
- keep the old (total) "fragmentation" field unchanged, but add new ones for spcific things
- add these the MEMORY DOCTOR command
- deduct LUA memory from the rss in case of non jemalloc allocator (one for which we don't "allocator active/used")
- reduce sampling rate of the rss and allocator info
After checking with the community via Twitter (here:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/915130876861788161) the verdict was to
use ":". However I later realized, after users lamented the fact that
it's hard to copy IDs just with double click, that this was the reason
why I moved to "." in the first instance. Fortunately "-", that was the
other option with most votes, also gets selected with double click on
most terminal applications on Linux and MacOS.
So my reasoning was:
1) We can't retain "." because it's actually confusing to newcomers, it
looks like a floating number, people may be tricked into thinking they
can order IDs numerically as floats.
2) Moving to a double-click-to-select format is much better. People will
work with such IDs for long time when coding / debugging. Why making now
a choice that will impact this for the next years?
The only other viable option was "-", and that's what I did. Thanks.
After checking with the community via Twitter (here:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/915130876861788161) the verdict was to
use ":". However I later realized, after users lamented the fact that
it's hard to copy IDs just with double click, that this was the reason
why I moved to "." in the first instance. Fortunately "-", that was the
other option with most votes, also gets selected with double click on
most terminal applications on Linux and MacOS.
So my reasoning was:
1) We can't retain "." because it's actually confusing to newcomers, it
looks like a floating number, people may be tricked into thinking they
can order IDs numerically as floats.
2) Moving to a double-click-to-select format is much better. People will
work with such IDs for long time when coding / debugging. Why making now
a choice that will impact this for the next years?
The only other viable option was "-", and that's what I did. Thanks.
