Skip to content

docs(tuning): durability + pub/sub enhancements in the tuning guide#245

Merged
pilotspacex-byte merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/tuning-durability
Jul 8, 2026
Merged

docs(tuning): durability + pub/sub enhancements in the tuning guide#245
pilotspacex-byte merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/tuning-durability

Conversation

@pilotspacex-byte

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Enhances docs/guides/tuning.md with the durability write-path campaign results (PRs #238#242, documented in BENCHMARK.md §7.3 via #244). Docs-only.

Changes

Persistence section rewritten. The old guidance predated the campaign — it quoted a single-hardware −9% at depth 1 and warned to "avoid deep pipelines" on always, both now wrong. Replaced with:

  • everysec: a win at pipeline depth (~1.32× Redis), parity unpipelined.
  • always: disk-fsync-bound (the disk sets the floor → parity with any engine), and now safe to pipeline — group commit shares one fsync per batch, so P16 recovered 0.12× → 0.91×.
  • A "which policy?" decision line; SIGKILL-recovery guarantee noted.
  • Framed as automatic behavior — no new knobs.

New "Pub/sub fan-out" section. Coalesced delivery (5.09M msg/s, zero drops) and the intentional slow-subscriber drop policy (256-message queue cap — the fix for drops is consumer-side).

Quick-recipe table. Refreshed the durable-store row; added a pub/sub row.

Cross-links to BENCHMARK.md §7.3. CHANGELOG updated.

@qodo-code-review

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Qodo reviews are paused for this user.

Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more →

On a Teams plan?
Reviews resume once this user has a paid seat and their Git account is linked in Qodo.
Link Git account →

Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center?
These require an Enterprise plan - Contact us
Contact us →

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@TinDang97, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 58 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 2acc1fa1-7060-42b8-802a-b2fa34aaa8a4

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b36b862 and c9deb65.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • CHANGELOG.md
  • docs/guides/tuning.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch docs/tuning-durability

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@TinDang97 TinDang97 force-pushed the docs/tuning-durability branch from 73b761d to 3b84aa6 Compare July 8, 2026 02:52
Enhance docs/guides/tuning.md with the write-path campaign results so the
persistence guidance is accurate and actionable.

- Persistence section rewritten: everysec is now a win at pipeline depth
  (~1.32x Redis) and at parity unpipelined; always is disk-fsync-bound
  (parity floor set by the disk, not the server) and safe to pipeline via
  group commit (P16 recovered 0.12x -> 0.91x). Removed the stale
  single-hardware "-9% at depth 1" figure and the "avoid deep pipelines on
  always" warning. Added a "which policy?" decision line. All framed as
  automatic behavior -- there are no new knobs.
- New "Pub/sub fan-out" section: coalesced delivery (5.09M msg/s, zero
  drops) and the intentional slow-subscriber drop policy (256-msg queue).
- Quick-recipe table: refreshed the durable-store row, added a pub/sub row.
- Cross-links to BENCHMARK.md section 7.3.

Docs-only.

author: Tin Dang
@TinDang97 TinDang97 force-pushed the docs/tuning-durability branch from 3b84aa6 to c9deb65 Compare July 8, 2026 03:37
@pilotspacex-byte pilotspacex-byte merged commit 08378cc into main Jul 8, 2026
10 checks passed
pilotspacex-byte added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2026
…les (#290)

The GitHub Pages deploy (docs.yml, mkdocs build --strict) has failed on
every main push since 2026-07-08: PR #245 added two links from
docs/guides/tuning.md to ../../BENCHMARK.md and PR #263's
docs/PRODUCTION-CONTRACT.md links ../RELEASES.md,
../.github/workflows/release.yml and ../BENCHMARK.md — all repo-root
files outside the MkDocs docs/ tree, each producing a strict-mode
warning (5 total → abort).

Convert the 5 links to absolute GitHub blob URLs, which strict mode
does not validate. Verified locally: mkdocs build --strict completes
with zero warnings (material + include-markdown + glightbox plugin
set matching requirements-docs.txt).

Docs-only; no code changes.

author: Tin Dang

Co-authored-by: Tin Dang <tindang.ht97@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants