Re: [DOCS] "distributed checkpoint"

Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-12-07 kell 18:22, kirjutas Simon Riggs:
> On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 19:43 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:19:44PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:49 -0500
> > > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > > > > Am I the only one who finds the phrase "distributed checkpointing"
> > > > > a bit awkward? Would it be better if we used "time-distributed
> > > > > checkpointing" instead?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, "distributed" has a bunch of connotations that are wrong for
> > > > this purpose.
> > > >
> > > > I spent a bit of time with a thesaurus but didn't come up with
> > > > anything that seemed le mot juste. Best I could do was "spread
> > > > checkpoint" or "time-extended checkpoint". Anybody have a better
> > > > idea?
> > >
> > > balanced
> > > gradual
> > > extended (I see you mention time-extended but wouldn't time be implicit
> > > based on the actual docs and thus we only need extended?)
> >
> > How about "smoothed?"
>
> Agreed
>
> "Smoothed" makes a lot of sense for me. We used to have a checkpoint
> spike, now we don't.

wide checkpoints ?

provide wide and low spikes :)

or even background checpoints ?

> Perhaps we should say something like "time extended checkpoints provide
> smoother (transaction?) response times"