Hey,
I just signed the petition "Election Commission of India: Make it possible
for every Indian to vote irrespective of where he or she may be temporarily
located" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.
Our goal is to reach 150,000 signatures and we need more support. You can
Hey,
I just signed the petition "Election Commission of India: Make it possible
for every Indian to vote irrespective of where he or she may be temporarily
located" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.
Our goal is to reach 150,000 signatures and we need more support. You can
Thanks Max.
I have documented all the discussions around this topic & useful inputs into
AIP-15 (Support Multiple-Schedulers for HA & Better Scheduling Performance)
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103092651
Personally I'd vote against the idea of having certain scheduler handling a
subset of the DAGs, that's just not HA.
Also if you are in an env where you have a small number of large DAGs, the
odds of having wasted work and double-firing get pretty high.
With the lock in place, it's just a matter
Get your point and agree. And the suggestion you gave lastly to random sort
DAGs is a great idea to address it. Thanks!
XD
> On 2 Mar 2019, at 10:41 PM, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> I think that the probability calculation holds only if there is no
> correlation between different schedulers. I
I think that the probability calculation holds only if there is no
correlation between different schedulers. I think however there might be an
accidental correlation if you think about typical deployments.
Some details why I think accidental correlation is possible and even
likely. Assume that:
