+1 (binding) On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:16 PM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:06 PM Deng Xiaodong <xd.den...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 (binding). > > > > Thanks for proceeding this AIP, Ash. > > > > > > XD > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 22:40 Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > This email calls for a vote on the design proposed in AIP-15, found here > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103092651 > > > > > > A few notes > > > > > > - The proposed architecture is to use an active/active architecture > > > where each scheduler is fully capable > > > - Nothing in this proposal locks us in to this design long term, and if > > > we find it doesn't work or scale we can change it. > > > - Lock contention doesn't worry me, as we (plan to) skip locked rows, > > > meaning that when one scheduler has a DAG locked it will be skipped > > > over by other schedulers > > > > > > This vote will last for 72 hours until 2020-03-20T21:40Z, and until at > > > least 3 votes have been cast. > > > > > > This is my +1 vote. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ash > > > > > > > >
-- Jarek Potiuk Polidea | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129
