[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-47?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13905777#comment-13905777
]
Chris Riccomini commented on SAMZA-47:
--------------------------------------
bq. It seemed most natural to me to put SamzaContainerContext in the
org.apache.samza.container package, even though that package didn't already
exist in the samza-api module. Would you prefer it to be somewhere else?
I don't see this guy in the pull request. Once it exists, yeah I think
samza-api + org.apache.samza.container is reasonable.
bq. I also tidied up a few other properties and brought the documentation
up-to-date
Sounds good.
bq. Gave the write buffer size the same treatment as the cache size, since it's
a similar off-heap, per-leveldb-instance allocation.
Sounds good.
bq. The change currently doesn't worry about backwards compatibility; any jobs
using the old config properties will have them silently ignored. If that's a
problem, we could try to preserve them (at the cost of messier code).
Sounds good. Shouldn't be a problem (yet). Once we cut a release, we should
start caring about it more.
> LevelDB and L1 cache use the same configuration value in KeyValueStorageEngine
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SAMZA-47
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-47
> Project: Samza
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.7.0
> Reporter: Jay Kreps
> Assignee: Martin Kleppmann
>
> Both seem to key off of
> cache.size
> This is not right. The L1 cache is caching a number of objects and leveldb is
> allocating a number of bytes. In general the leveldb cache should be big
> (tens of MBs) and the L1 cache small (a few thousand).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
