[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14198338#comment-14198338
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-329:
--------------------------------------

Github user tedxia commented on the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-61803120
  
    ```
    High Availability test
    
    test scenario: 4 machine A,B,C,D, 4 worker, 1 worker on each machine
    
    test case1(STORM-404): on machine A, kill worker. A will create a new 
worker taking the same port.
    ```
    @clockfly ,in your case, I have some question about your case, storm 
scheduler will escape schedule a new worker at the same ip:port after a worker 
crash. 
    
    And if storm schedule not schedule new worker as i said, in you test case2, 
the scheduler will schedule new worker on the same ip:port continuously, the 
behavior will not change as you occupy the port.



> Add Option to Config Message handling strategy when connection timeout
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: STORM-329
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329
>             Project: Apache Storm
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 0.9.2-incubating
>            Reporter: Sean Zhong
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: Netty
>             Fix For: 0.9.2-incubating
>
>         Attachments: storm-329.patch, worker-kill-recover3.jpg
>
>
> This is to address a [concern brought 
> up|https://github.com/apache/incubator-storm/pull/103#issuecomment-43632986] 
> during the work at STORM-297:
> {quote}
> [~revans2] wrote: Your logic makes since to me on why these calls are 
> blocking. My biggest concern around the blocking is in the case of a worker 
> crashing. If a single worker crashes this can block the entire topology from 
> executing until that worker comes back up. In some cases I can see that being 
> something that you would want. In other cases I can see speed being the 
> primary concern and some users would like to get partial data fast, rather 
> then accurate data later.
> Could we make it configurable on a follow up JIRA where we can have a max 
> limit to the buffering that is allowed, before we block, or throw data away 
> (which is what zeromq does)?
> {quote}
> If some worker crash suddenly, how to handle the message which was supposed 
> to be delivered to the worker?
> 1. Should we buffer all message infinitely?
> 2. Should we block the message sending until the connection is resumed?
> 3. Should we config a buffer limit, try to buffer the message first, if the 
> limit is met, then block?
> 4. Should we neither block, nor buffer too much, but choose to drop the 
> messages, and use the built-in storm failover mechanism? 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to