[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-855?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Matthias J. Sax updated STORM-855:
--
Issue Type: New Feature (was: Improvement)
> Add tuple batching
> --
>
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-798?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577250#comment-14577250
]
Jungtaek Lim commented on STORM-798:
I really want to resolve this issue in order to be
Github user kishorvpatil commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/581#issuecomment-110025014
+1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-853?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577297#comment-14577297
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-853:
--
Github user kishorvpatil commented on the pull
I’m +1 for moving forward with the current release candidate. I think we can
address STORM-813 in a follow-up bug fix/maintenance release (soon).
In the big picture, the REST upload API is just one of many, many
features/improvements added in 0.10.0, and we’ve not leveraged it in any way
yet (i
+1. Agree about not blocking the release.
‹ unit tests passed
‹ word count and Exclamation topology executed successfully.
‹ All UI actions work as expected.
‹ Rolling upgrade works, Tested by rebuilding the same version and copying
the new jar under storm/lib and bouncing all daemons.
‹ Storm sec
+1 for the release.
1) verified keys on all release artifacts.
2) verified deploying topologies in secure and non-secure cluster.
--
Harsha
On June 8, 2015 at 12:06:31 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt (pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com)
wrote:
+1. Agree about not blocking the release.
‹ unit tests passed
GitHub user chuanlei opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/584
Feature add topology based scheduler
New Scheduler based on the static information of Topology
Here we convert the schedule problem as a min-cut problem. i.e.
We should partition the graph in
OK, I see your point.
I know Storm 0.10.0 is postponed several times, and it already has very
huge changeset.
I don't mean to say we have to postpone again, just want to hear
opinion that we're OK to release with know issue, or fix it ASAP and reopen
vote.
I'm +1 (non-binding) with describing kno
I agree. I’m starting to prepare the announcement blog post (you will see a
separate thread shortly). My plan was to not highlight the REST upload API
because it has a known issue, and also list it as a known issue in the
announcement.
From there we should put STORM-813 in the 0.10.1 queue and
I’m working on a blog post for the 0.10.0 release and plan on highlighting the
main new features. There are a lot and I want to make sure I mention them.
Below is what I have off the top of my head (in no particular order aside from
the fist):
* Security (the big one)
* Support for future r
Derek Dagit created STORM-856:
-
Summary: If nimbus goes down with a delayed kill topo cmd, it
never comes up
Key: STORM-856
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856
Project: Apache Storm
Found STORM-856: If nimbus goes down with a delayed kill topo cmd, it never
comes up
Not sure if this is particular to the 0.10.0 line, but it seems bad.
--
Derek
From: P. Taylor Goetz
To: dev@storm.apache.org
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 3:49 PM
Subject: R
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577895#comment-14577895
]
Jungtaek Lim commented on STORM-856:
We would be better to have more informations to ad
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577902#comment-14577902
]
Kyle Nusbaum commented on STORM-856:
Reproducable always on 0.10 branch. 0.9 branch is
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577902#comment-14577902
]
Kyle Nusbaum edited comment on STORM-856 at 6/8/15 9:47 PM:
Rep
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577902#comment-14577902
]
Kyle Nusbaum edited comment on STORM-856 at 6/8/15 9:57 PM:
Rep
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577902#comment-14577902
]
Kyle Nusbaum edited comment on STORM-856 at 6/8/15 9:58 PM:
Rep
What do you mean by not backwards compatible? From the API perspective it
should be binary compatible, and should be able to run old topologies without a
recompile (assuming no dependencies from storm were used, and I believe at
least one config was removed, but you would have to check). When r
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577935#comment-14577935
]
Derek Dagit commented on STORM-856:
---
Suspect we may not be serializing `:delay-secs`
[he
I'm thinking also about external components. I'm not in front of source right
now, but I think we changed the kafka config in a non backward compatible way.
We're probably okay with a statement about recompiling. And, yes, older
components such as storm-kafka should continue to work without repa
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577958#comment-14577958
]
Jungtaek Lim commented on STORM-856:
Yes, I see your point.
Neither thrift and clojure
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jungtaek Lim reassigned STORM-856:
--
Assignee: (was: Jungtaek Lim)
> If nimbus goes down with a delayed kill topo cmd, it never c
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jungtaek Lim reassigned STORM-856:
--
Assignee: Jungtaek Lim
> If nimbus goes down with a delayed kill topo cmd, it never comes up
> -
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577984#comment-14577984
]
Jungtaek Lim commented on STORM-856:
Sorry, assigning is by accident, my cat just walks
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14577958#comment-14577958
]
Jungtaek Lim edited comment on STORM-856 at 6/8/15 10:42 PM:
-
Y
Ya the reason I have been thinking about it is because we have been trough it
with our customers for security already, and we have are preparing for
upmerging to 0.10.0 and we need to tell our customers what to do.
- Bobby
On Monday, June 8, 2015 5:15 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
I
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Derek Dagit reassigned STORM-856:
-
Assignee: Derek Dagit
> If nimbus goes down with a delayed kill topo cmd, it never comes up
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Derek Dagit updated STORM-856:
--
Priority: Blocker (was: Major)
> If nimbus goes down with a delayed kill topo cmd, it never comes up
> -
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578101#comment-14578101
]
Derek Dagit commented on STORM-856:
---
Actually, I think it is serialized, but it is nested
Looks like it's 0.10.x-specific.
Perhaps we should label 0.10.0 as a beta?
At least that way the user community could at least kick the tires on the new
features, and know that known bugs are being addressed. And honestly, we
probably should have switched to that model earlier.
I think it wou
I think that would be great. We expect there to be bug fixes in many different
areas. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568 is an example. Labeling 0.10.0
as beta seems fine, so long as we have a plan in the relatively near term to
move from beta to stable.
- Bobby
On Monday, June
GitHub user d2r opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/585
[STORM-856] use serialized value of delay secs for topo actions
* Use serialized values for delay in rebalance and kill topology actions,
in case nimbus has initialized sometime after the action was give
Github user d2r commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/585#issuecomment-110191747
This should also be merged to 0.10.x-branch.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project d
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578166#comment-14578166
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-856:
--
Github user d2r commented on the pull request:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-856?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578165#comment-14578165
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-856:
--
GitHub user d2r opened a pull request:
ht
- I am OK with labeling BETA.
- Fix for STORM-856: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/585
- Not a big deal, but I noticed the dependency-reduced-pom.xml files are
getting bundled with the -src.
--
Derek
- Original Message -
From: Bobby Evans
To: "dev@storm.apache.org"
Cc:
S
Either beta or RC is great for me.
0.10.0 include many features but it seems not have time to be evaluated by
users or dog fooding.
I wanna get official version ASAP which is better for me to persuade my
team, but getting stable version is most important point, so I'd like to
test before releasing.
Okay. Let's proceed with the release, and label it as a beta.
We should consider setting a deadline for the next release, and give it enough
time for feedback on the current beta.
Any thoughts on a timeline?
-Taylor
> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:38 PM, 임정택 wrote:
>
> Either beta or RC is great f
Github user itaifrenkel commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/532#issuecomment-110206734
AFAIK the spout can just ignore the nextTuple requests. Are you trying to
save on stdout/stdin nextTuple traffic ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can repl
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-756?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578234#comment-14578234
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-756:
--
Github user itaifrenkel commented on the pull
Hello,
please add me to the storm mailing list for developers.
--
Thanks,
Nick Jordan
Github user vesense commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/580#issuecomment-110212096
+1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-852?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578248#comment-14578248
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-852:
--
Github user vesense commented on the pull requ
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-661?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578251#comment-14578251
]
jia.fu commented on STORM-661:
--
I run storm 0.9.3 cluster and still get this issue .anyone
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/532#issuecomment-110216352
@itaifrenkel
I think Spout doesn't matter since subprocess has a chance to slow down its
flow.
But Bolt does matter cause ShellBolt sends all tuples to subpro
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-661?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578268#comment-14578268
]
Sriharsha Chintalapani commented on STORM-661:
--
[~jia.fu] This is fixed in 0.9
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-756?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578270#comment-14578270
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-756:
--
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/532#issuecomment-110216616
@itaifrenkel Actually I read paper about Twitter Heron, and it can
propagate backpressure.
Storm currently doesn't have it, so ShellBolt itself should ensure
bac
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-756?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578274#comment-14578274
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-756:
--
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/580#issuecomment-110216994
LGTM.
Could we apply it to clj implementations?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-852?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578278#comment-14578278
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-852:
--
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/532#issuecomment-110219954
@itaifrenkel
I see your point.
Spout can skip sending nextTuple to subprocess so that we can save
stdout/stdin traffic and Spout doesn't block or sleep and c
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-756?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14578290#comment-14578290
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-756:
--
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull
54 matches
Mail list logo
