Really?  Disabling config files seems to me to be a bigger/more onerous
change for users than spark.speculation=true|false =>
spark.speculation.enabled=true|false and spark.locality.wait =>
spark.locality.wait.default.


On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com>wrote:

> This is definitely an important issue to fix. Instead of renaming
> properties, one solution would be to replace Typesafe Config with just
> reading Java system properties, and disable config files for this release.
> I kind of like that over renaming.
>
> Matei
>
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >  Speculation was an example, there are others in spark which are
> > affected by this ...
> > Some of them have been around for a while, so will break existing
> code/scripts.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mridul
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> change spark.speculation to spark.speculation.switch?
> >>
> >> maybe we can restrict that all properties in Spark should be "three
> levels"
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>  Unless I am mistaken, the change to using typesafe ConfigFactory has
> >>> broken some of the system properties we use in spark.
> >>>
> >>> For example: if we have both
> >>> -Dspark.speculation=true -Dspark.speculation.multiplier=0.95
> >>> set, then the spark.speculation property is dropped.
> >>>
> >>> The rules of parseProperty actually document this clearly [1]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure what the right fix here would be (other than replacing
> >>> use of config that is).
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts ?
> >>> I would vote -1 for 0.9 to be released before this is fixed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Mridul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> http://typesafehub.github.io/config/latest/api/com/typesafe/config/ConfigFactory.html#parseProperties%28java.util.Properties,%20com.typesafe.config.ConfigParseOptions%29
> >>>
>
>

Reply via email to