Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 7, 2023. It is now read-only.
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 7, 2023. It is now read-only.

Next WG Meeting #12

Closed
Closed
Next WG Meeting#12

Description

@yunong
yunong
opened on Nov 30, 2015

It's been a while since our last WG meeting. Anyone opposed to setting up a new one? I know @indutny has been working on some interesting post mortem work with github.com/indutny/llnode for Linux. I'd like to talk about next steps in terms of making mdb_v8 more broadly available on different platforms.

cc @davepacheco @jclulow @lucamaraschi

Activity

  1. misterdjules commented on Dec 1, 2015

    @misterdjules
    misterdjules
    on Dec 1, 2015

    @yunong I'm in too.

  2. lucamaraschi commented on Dec 1, 2015

    @lucamaraschi
    lucamaraschi
    on Dec 1, 2015
    Contributor

    @yunong definitely in! ;-)
    I would like to add to the discussion point a more broader overview and "vision" of how we could evolve post-mortem to cross platforms and especially improve/evolve developer and operation experience.

  3. indutny commented on Dec 1, 2015

    @indutny
    indutny
    on Dec 1, 2015
    Member

    I'm in too.

  4. bmeck commented on Dec 1, 2015

    @bmeck
    bmeck
    on Dec 1, 2015
    Member

    I'm more in JSON snapshot land, but I can join in.

  5. yunong commented on Dec 1, 2015

    @yunong
    yunong
    on Dec 1, 2015
    MemberAuthor

    Great, seeing as it's close to the Holidays, I'll send out a doodle for the new year in a little bit.

  6. davepacheco commented on Dec 1, 2015

    @davepacheco
    davepacheco
    on Dec 1, 2015

    I'm in.

    In terms of topics for discussion: the goals of the WG that we outlined in earlier meetings were:

    to elevate the role of postmortem debugging for Node, to assist in the development of techniques and tools, and to make techniques and tools known and available to Node.js users.

    (from README.md). I've said that I think our goal should be to encourage the efforts of the several different projects working on postmortem tools for Node and to do any work that's truly common to many of them (e.g., collecting use-cases and managing the metadata stored in V8/Node itself). I don't think we should be trying to pick (or work on) a One True Tool for Node postmortem debugging because I don't think there's a tool that can meet all of our needs -- the use-cases are overlapping, but also conflicting. It seemed to me that people agreed with this, but I don't want to assume anything or put words in anybody's mouth. If people do agree, I think it's worth calling this out in the mission.

    And if that's true, I think the most useful next pieces of work for the WG remain:

    I'd like to talk about moving mdb_v8 forward, too, but I'm reluctant to use the WG to focus on the tactical development work of one of the many tools out there.

  7. lucamaraschi commented on Jan 13, 2016

    @lucamaraschi
    lucamaraschi
    on Jan 13, 2016
    Contributor

    @yunong any idea of when we should gather all together again?

  8. yunong commented on Jan 13, 2016

    @yunong
    yunong
    on Jan 13, 2016
    MemberAuthor

    Here's the doodle poll for the next meeting. Please RSVP.

    http://doodle.com/poll/5hntc5hcwxsz2mx6

  9. yunong commented on Jan 13, 2016

    @yunong
    yunong
    on Jan 13, 2016
    MemberAuthor

    cc @mhdawson @seabaylea

  10. mhdawson commented on Jan 14, 2016

    @mhdawson
    mhdawson
    on Jan 14, 2016
    Member

    @davepacheco I agree with the general discussion you outlined. In our impromptu meeting at node interactive we discussed:

    1. providing documentation on the format of the data needed by IBM's IDDE tool
    2. providing documentation on the format of the data needed by mdb
    3. reviewing the 2 of those to see if we could define a consolidated format that could be used by "any" tool and for which the required data would be included in node core files.

    The focus being on the common "enablers" that allow tools to work on the community node releases.

  11. seabaylea commented on Jan 15, 2016

    @seabaylea
    seabaylea
    on Jan 15, 2016
    Contributor

    Hey @yunong Unfortunately I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, so most likely can't make the next meeting.

    Below are my notes from some of the discussions that occurred around Node Interactive. I wrote them up at the time to circulate more widely, but didn't get around to posting them earlier.

    These all centre around memory issues and the V8 heapdump:

    V8 Heapdump improvements:

    1. Dump writing performance
      1. Reported as being much slower that expected - are they failing to use buffered writes?
      2. Uses large amounts of memory - are they building an in-memory model before writing to disk?
    2. Dump creation capabilities
      1. Dump on OOM
      2. Dump on request
      3. Dump on triggers?
    3. Dump contents
      1. Do we have sufficient data for analysis?
      2. Where is the format specified?

    Chrome Dev Tools:

    1. Not able to load large dumps
    2. Sizes may be incorrect
    3. Retained size may cross a closure boundary

    There was also some conversations with @ofrobots who believe that the V8 team would be pretty receptive to heap dump improvements.

    I'd love to see the automatic generation of heap dumps on memory exhaustion as a near term goal!

  12. yunong commented on Jan 15, 2016

    @yunong
    yunong
    on Jan 15, 2016
    MemberAuthor

    From the looks of it 12 PM PST on January 28, 2016 is the time that works for everyone. Let's plan on having the meeting there. I will update this thread with a hangouts link.

  13. yunong commented on Jan 27, 2016

    @yunong
    yunong
    on Jan 27, 2016
    MemberAuthor

    Here's the link to the hangout for active participants:
    https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/event/c8619gosgi8sv1i0vo0dvnm0s04?hl=en-GB&authuser=0

  14. indutny commented on Jan 27, 2016

    @indutny
    indutny
    on Jan 27, 2016
    Member

    Wow... I have a sudden conflict with CTC meeting. Sorry!

  15. yunong commented on Jan 28, 2016

    @yunong
    yunong
    on Jan 28, 2016
    MemberAuthor

    Meeting minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f7bGNEEahS9bIielk5sMpPRDlrMt3NtI2-GSHanNBcs/edit?usp=sharing

  16. mhdawson commented on Jan 28, 2016

    @mhdawson
    mhdawson
    on Jan 28, 2016
    Member

    Sorry I had the same CTC conflict. Looks like there was good progress on moving towards a common format. I'll catch up with Richard to get up to speed.

  17. lucamaraschi commented on Jan 31, 2016

    @lucamaraschi
    lucamaraschi
    on Jan 31, 2016
    Contributor

    @yunong was the meeting also recorded?

  18. yunong commented on Feb 1, 2016

    @yunong
    yunong
    on Feb 1, 2016
    MemberAuthor

    @lucamaraschi Unfortunately I couldn't figure out how to start the recording. I will try and make sure we record the next one.

  19. rnchamberlain
    closed this as completedon Feb 24, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions