THIS IS A TEST INSTANCE. ALL YOUR CHANGES WILL BE LOST!!!!
...
As described above, dropped events in the primary gateway sender are stored in a member variable. It is out of the scope of this RFC to change how those events are stored.
Solution 1 (original proposal, deprecated)
The solution proposes to change the primary gateway sender so that it does not store dropped events when it is stopped explicitly (not while starting). The reason is that these events could never end in the queue of any secondary gateway sender and will use memory unnecessarily.
...
As the proposal implies changing the implementation of the start gateway sender and stop gateway sender gfsh commands to be done in two steps, these commands may be slightly slower although not significantly.
Backwards Compatibility and Upgrade Path
The proposal does not affect the rolling upgrade and has not impacts in the regular rolling upgrade process.
Solution 2 (new proposal, agreed after discussions on this RFC )
The solution consists of, instead of storing dropped events in `tmpDroppedEvents` to later send batch removal messages when the primary gateway sender is not started, try to send the batch removal message when the event to be dropped is received. That way, when the sender is stopped for a long time and there are events coming, the memory of the `AbstractGatewaySender` will not grow with entries in the `tmpDroppedEvents` member.
In order to send the batch removal message directly, the `eventProcessor` for the `AbstractGatewaySender` must have been created. If it is not yet created because the sender was created with manual start set to true, while receiving events to be dropped, they will be stored in `tmpDroppedEvents` as there is no other choice. Nevertheless, in order to consume less memory, the event stored could be a simplified event containing only the necessary information to handle it.
A draft PR of the solution can be found here: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5486
Changes and Additions to Public Interfaces
No changes.
Performance Impact
No impacts foreseen.
Backwards Compatibility and Upgrade Path
The proposal does not affect the rolling upgrade and has not impacts in the regular rolling upgrade process.
...