console proxy client sleep more generic

[DaanHoogland]

Description

This PR...

Fixes: #8692

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• build/CI

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[DaanHoogland]

@weizhouapache @nvazquez , this is purely based on the description in #8692. Any advice on verification?

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✔️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 8747

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 13.16%. Comparing base (e09fd2e) to head (ce94b05).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               4.18    #8694   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     13.16%   13.16%           
  Complexity     9203     9203           
=========================================
  Files          2724     2724           
  Lines        258122   258122           
  Branches      40230    40230           
=========================================
  Hits          33989    33989           
  Misses       219825   219825           
  Partials       4308     4308           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [LL]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 6211

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 8748

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan test alma9 kvm-alma9

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (alma9 mgmt + kvm-alma9) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[weizhouapache]

code lgtm

[kohrar]

A couple questions, if you don't mind:

1. Would it make sense from a latency-perspective to only wait 1ms if there's actually no data coming in? If there's a big chunk of data coming in, you might not want to wait 1ms to read ~200 bytes (which appears to be the maximum the NIO readNextBytes method would return)
2. Why 1ms? Could we raise this to reduce wasted CPU cycles even more? My testing showed the CPU went from 100% to 25%. This might still seem a bit excessive.

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-9319)
Environment: kvm-alma9 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server a9
Total time taken: 45921 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr8694-t9319-kvm-alma9.zip
Smoke tests completed. 110 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

[DaanHoogland]

A couple questions, if you don't mind:

1. Would it make sense from a latency-perspective to only wait 1ms if there's actually no data coming in? If there's a big chunk of data coming in, you might not want to wait 1ms to read ~200 bytes (which appears to be the maximum the NIO readNextBytes method would return)

2. Why 1ms? Could we raise this to reduce wasted CPU cycles even more? My testing showed the CPU went from 100% to 25%. This might still seem a bit excessive.

valid questions @kohrar , sounds like you are arguing for configurability. This is the simplest solution to the issue in your initial ticket. What you are asking now is a bigger (functional) change however. I would prefer to discuss and implement that separately.