Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The situation described in this article could be relevant to our performance issue
https://snyk.io/blog/nodejs-how-even-quick-async-functions-can-block-the-event-loop-starve-io/
Theory would be a long queue of promises keeps the Node.js event loop so backed up, the poll phase is ignored long enough that we start seeing timeouts. Because, importantly, the poll phase is where new connections can be established. Maybe the CPU gets cranking away at 100% on a loop of promises and ignores new connections, leading to the timeouts we see
Solution might be using setImmediate in places where it makes sense, rather than solely relying on async / await (edited)