dnwiebe
commented
2 years ago (This is really from Bert.)
If several consumption/provision Actors make the situation better rather than worse, is it better to create all of them at bootstrap time, or is it better to create only one of them at bootstrap time and bring others online as they're needed, destroying them when demand is reduced?
Speculation: If we were to classify the messages that come into the
Accountantin a standard Node session, a significant majority of them would beReportXxxServiceConsumedandReportXxxServiceProvidedmessages.(If you find an easy way to confirm or rebut this speculation, try it and see.)
We believe that carving this responsibility off the
Accountantand giving it to a new Actor might make the whole Node more responsive; however, it might instead make the Node less responsive by creating severe database contention between the new Actor and theAccountant, since they'd both be modifying the same database tables.Do enough spiking to determine the answers to one or two questions:
One: Does creating a separate Actor to handle consumption and provision reports make the Node more responsive, so that demands on the
Accountantare processed more promptly? (You might want to collect some statistics before you make the change to help you answer this question.)Two: If creating a separate Actor does help, what happens if you create several instances of the separate Actor, and round-robin the consumption/provision messages among them? Do things get better, or worse?
Deliverables: Show the results of your work as regards service improvement or degradation, and show the code you used to determine it. (For example, create a branch in the Repository containing that code and link to it in a comment on this card.)