Re: Communicating memory pressure in mediastream recording

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote:

> Moving the blobs to disk under memory pressure is a good idea. It's
> basically the app's only option anyway in some cases. Even with that
> available, however, there's still an issue: suppose the disk is full. I
> think we need a memory pressure (or storage pressure, more generically)
> signal regardless if the client is accepting streaming blocks. And in other
> cases, the app may prefer to take another approach to the signal. (i.e.
> stop and then restart the recording)
>
> I think an implementation that sent LOW_MEMORY, then soon after began
> transferring to disk, then sent OUT_OF_MEMORY on exhaustion would be pretty
> robust in the use cases we've discussed.
>

I don't think we should design API that's only used in "disk full"
situations. That's going to be even more obscure and more difficult for Web
developers to test than memory pressure. And it's getting rapidly more
obscure because slow storage is still scaling up fast.

Let's not overdesign here. If the device runs out of all storage, the
system should kill apps and take other measures to free up storage. I don't
think it makes any sense to try to get away from that.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
*