Review Request 46296: SAMZA-932: JMX port collisions in JmxServer
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46296/ --- Review request for samza. Repository: samza Description --- SAMZA-932: JMX port collisions in JmxServer Diffs - samza-core/src/main/scala/org/apache/samza/metrics/JmxServer.scala e6204c10878589d34096378e6000709266a9b4a5 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46296/diff/ Testing --- ./gradlew clean build && ./gradlew checkstyleMain checkstyleTest Thanks, Tao Feng
Re: Review Request 46287: Add a double serde.
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46287/#review129210 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Jake Maes On April 15, 2016, 11:17 p.m., Jon Bringhurst wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/46287/ > --- > > (Updated April 15, 2016, 11:17 p.m.) > > > Review request for samza. > > > Bugs: SAMZA-936 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-936 > > > Repository: samza > > > Description > --- > > Add a simple double serde. > > > Diffs > - > > samza-core/src/main/scala/org/apache/samza/serializers/DoubleSerde.scala > PRE-CREATION > > samza-core/src/test/scala/org/apache/samza/serializers/TestDoubleSerde.scala > PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46287/diff/ > > > Testing > --- > > A simple unit test was added. > > > Thanks, > > Jon Bringhurst > >
Review Request 46287: Add a double serde.
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46287/ --- Review request for samza. Bugs: SAMZA-936 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-936 Repository: samza Description --- Add a simple double serde. Diffs - samza-core/src/main/scala/org/apache/samza/serializers/DoubleSerde.scala PRE-CREATION samza-core/src/test/scala/org/apache/samza/serializers/TestDoubleSerde.scala PRE-CREATION Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46287/diff/ Testing --- A simple unit test was added. Thanks, Jon Bringhurst
Re: Review Request 46282: SAMZA-928 document Kerberos on YARN
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46282/ --- (Updated April 15, 2016, 10:09 p.m.) Review request for samza. Repository: samza Description --- SAMZA-928 document Kerberos on YARN Diffs (updated) - docs/learn/documentation/versioned/jobs/yarn-jobs.md 827cc14 docs/learn/documentation/versioned/yarn/isolation.md 1eb3bf5 docs/learn/documentation/versioned/yarn/yarn-security.md PRE-CREATION Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46282/diff/ Testing --- Thanks, Chen Song
Review Request 46282: SAMZA-928 document Kerberos on YARN
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46282/ --- Review request for samza. Repository: samza Description --- SAMZA-928 document Kerberos on YARN Diffs - docs/learn/documentation/versioned/jobs/yarn-jobs.md 827cc14 docs/learn/documentation/versioned/yarn/isolation.md 1eb3bf5 docs/learn/documentation/versioned/yarn/yarn-security.md PRE-CREATION Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46282/diff/ Testing --- Thanks, Chen Song
Re: Exactly once processing
Looking at: https://github.com/apache/samza/blob/f02386464d31b5a496bb0578838f51a0331bfffa/samza-core/src/main/scala/org/apache/samza/container/TaskInstance.scala#L171 The commit function, in order, does: 1. Flushes metrics 2. Flushes stores 3. Produces messages from the collectors 4. Write offsets So I would reason that it would be OK to store an offset you've seen in the store and use that to skip the messages if you've already mutated your data -- but be aware any of 2 (if multiple stores) ,3, or 4 may not have happened so you might want to do those again. You'd need to be careful if your changes span multiple stores or keys since multiple writes to changelogs are not atomic. Question to maintainers: is it safe for Samza users to relay on this order? On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Sabarish Sasidharan < sabarish@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Guozhang > > Thanks. Assuming the checkpoint would typically be behind the offset > persisted in my store (+ changelog), when the messages are replayed > starting from the checkpoint, I can very well skip those by comparing > against the offset in my store right? So I am not understanding why > duplicates would affect my state. > > Regards > Sab > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > > Hi Sab, > > > > For stateful processing where you have persistent state stores, you need > to > > maintain the checkpoint which includes the committed offsets as well as > the > > store flushed in sync, but right not these two operations are not done > > atomically, and hence if you fail in between, you could still get > > duplicates where you consume from the committed offsets while some of > them > > have already updated the stores. > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Sasidharan, Sabarish < > > sabarish.sasidha...@harman.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > To achieve exactly once processing for my aggregates, wouldn’t it be > > > enough if I maintain the latest offset processed for the aggregate and > > > check against that offset when messages are replayed on recovery? Am I > > > missing something here? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Regards > > > Sab > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > >
Re: Exactly once processing
Hi Guozhang Thanks. Assuming the checkpoint would typically be behind the offset persisted in my store (+ changelog), when the messages are replayed starting from the checkpoint, I can very well skip those by comparing against the offset in my store right? So I am not understanding why duplicates would affect my state. Regards Sab On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > Hi Sab, > > For stateful processing where you have persistent state stores, you need to > maintain the checkpoint which includes the committed offsets as well as the > store flushed in sync, but right not these two operations are not done > atomically, and hence if you fail in between, you could still get > duplicates where you consume from the committed offsets while some of them > have already updated the stores. > > Guozhang > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Sasidharan, Sabarish < > sabarish.sasidha...@harman.com> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > To achieve exactly once processing for my aggregates, wouldn’t it be > > enough if I maintain the latest offset processed for the aggregate and > > check against that offset when messages are replayed on recovery? Am I > > missing something here? > > > > Thanks > > > > Regards > > Sab > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
Re: Exactly once processing
Hi Sab, For stateful processing where you have persistent state stores, you need to maintain the checkpoint which includes the committed offsets as well as the store flushed in sync, but right not these two operations are not done atomically, and hence if you fail in between, you could still get duplicates where you consume from the committed offsets while some of them have already updated the stores. Guozhang On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Sasidharan, Sabarish < sabarish.sasidha...@harman.com> wrote: > Hi > > To achieve exactly once processing for my aggregates, wouldn’t it be > enough if I maintain the latest offset processed for the aggregate and > check against that offset when messages are replayed on recovery? Am I > missing something here? > > Thanks > > Regards > Sab -- -- Guozhang
Exactly once processing
Hi To achieve exactly once processing for my aggregates, wouldn’t it be enough if I maintain the latest offset processed for the aggregate and check against that offset when messages are replayed on recovery? Am I missing something here? Thanks Regards Sab
Exactly once processing
Hi To achieve exactly once processing for my aggregates, wouldn’t it be enough if I maintain the latest offset processed for the aggregate and check against that offset when messages are replayed on recovery? Am I missing something here? Thanks Regards Sab
