> .. if the provider we are bringing up also
> provides the data store, we can just omit the data store for that benchmark
> and use what we've already brought up. Does that answer your question, or
> have I misunderstood?
Yes, and it is a perfect approach for the case, great idea.
> Great point
Thanks Ismael for the comments! Replied inline.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote:
> Excellent proposal, sorry to jump into this discussion so late, this
> was in my toread list for almost two weeks, and I finally got the time
> to read the document and I have two minor comment
Excellent proposal, sorry to jump into this discussion so late, this
was in my toread list for almost two weeks, and I finally got the time
to read the document and I have two minor comments:
I have the impression that the strict separation of Providers (the
data-processing systems) and Resources
Looks great, and I'll be sure to follow this. Ping me if I can assist in
any way!
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:09 AM Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Sounds great, thank you!
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Jason Kuster .invalid
> > wrote:
>
> > D'oh, my bad Ahmet. I've opened BEAM-1610, which handles sup
Sounds great, thank you!
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Jason Kuster wrote:
> D'oh, my bad Ahmet. I've opened BEAM-1610, which handles support for Python
> in PKB against the Dataflow runner. Once the Fn API progresses some more we
> can add some work items for the other runners too. Let's chat
D'oh, my bad Ahmet. I've opened BEAM-1610, which handles support for Python
in PKB against the Dataflow runner. Once the Fn API progresses some more we
can add some work items for the other runners too. Let's chat about this
more, maybe next week?
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Ahmet Altay
wrote
Thank you Jason, this is great.
Which one of these issues fall into the land of sdk-py?
Ahmet
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Jason Kuster <
jasonkus...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> Glad to hear the excitement. :)
>
> Filed BEAM-1595 - 1609 to track work items. Some of these fall under runner
Glad to hear the excitement. :)
Filed BEAM-1595 - 1609 to track work items. Some of these fall under runner
components, please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions
about how to accomplish these.
Best,
Jason
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> Thanks for
Thanks for writing this and taking care of this, Jason!
I'm afraid I also cannot add anything except that I'm excited to see some
results from this.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 at 03:28 Kenneth Knowles wrote:
Just got a chance to look this over. I don't have anything to add, but I'm
pretty excited to fo
Just got a chance to look this over. I don't have anything to add, but I'm
pretty excited to follow this project. Have the JIRAs been filed since you
shared the doc?
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jason Kuster <
jasonkus...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hey all, just wanted to pop this up again
Hey all, just wanted to pop this up again for people -- if anyone has
thoughts on performance testing please feel welcome to chime in. :)
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Jason Kuster
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've written up a doc on next steps for getting performance testing up and
> running for Be
Hi all,
I've written up a doc on next steps for getting performance testing up and
running for Beam. I'd love to hear from people -- there's a fair amount of
work encapsulated in here, but the end result is that we have a performance
testing system which we can use for benchmarking all aspects of
12 matches
Mail list logo
