Github user eshioji commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/617#discussion_r34602607
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -59,20 +59,16 @@
* - Connecting and reconnecting are performed
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/597#issuecomment-120603640
If the thread is used in `ThreadPoolExecutor` (like the boss & worker
thread pool currently used), `UncaughtExceptionHandler` are not invoked because
`ThreadPoolExec
GitHub user eshioji opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/617
Storm 763/839 0.10.x
This is a port of PR #568 from 0.9.x to 0.10.x. It fixes STORM-839
(Deadlock) and STORM-763 (Establish Netty reconnects asynchronously and reduce
verbosity of error logs
GitHub user eshioji opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/616
Storm 763/839 0.11.x
This is a port of PR #568 . It fixes STORM-839 (Deadlock) and STORM-763
(Establish Netty reconnects asynchronously and reduce verbosity of error logs)
@revans2 This is
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-117171697
@revans2 I see, OK, I'll ping you again when they are ready.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitH
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-116872325
@revans2 No worries!
Just to clarify, do I create a pull request for 0.10.x AND master?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-112825846
Hi @revans2 , did you have time to look at the results above?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-108978724
@revans2 I was able to bring back the performance where it was, if not a
bit higher:
| | 0.9.5-SNAPSHOT | STORM-763
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-108263716
@revans2 Thanks for the performance testing, I could replicate very similar
results on our machine. I'm trying a few things, hopefully I can get it back to
where i
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-107822705
@revans2 Sure, take your time and let me know if you find something to
change!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-107578216
@revans2 Re: pending metric, I see. I removed it thinking that it
exclusively had to do with the `pendingMessage` field, but now I realise it was
actually tracking
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/566#issuecomment-107148613
Hi @miguno , thanks for taking the time. I think I have a [fix for
STORM-763](https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568) which builds on this PR.
Let me know what you
GitHub user eshioji opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568
[STORM-763] nimbus reassigned worker A to another machine, but other
worker's netty client can't connect to the new worker A
(This PR builds on [STORM-839](https://github.com/apache/stor
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/566#issuecomment-106800904
Just as a heads up, I'm seeing STORM-763 as well (300 ERROR messages per
second per machine) in our cluster. My initial gut feeling is that maybe
reconnect isn'
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/566#issuecomment-106792295
@Hailei I see.
> Block client thread until there is space (back pressure) is better.It can
snap out of OOM.
Agreed, but my understanding is that t
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/566#issuecomment-106768270
@Hailei Thanks for the comment. Could you review my reasoning in the [PR
comment above](https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/566#issue-82369808)?
---
If your project
GitHub user eshioji opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/566
[STORM-839] Deadlock hazard in backtype.storm.messaging.netty.Client
(I accidentally did a PR against master with the same content, please
ignore that one)
This fixes the reported deadlock
Github user eshioji closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/565
---
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 wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user eshioji commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/565#issuecomment-106765335
Argh sorry I should have opened this against Storm v0.9.4, I worked off
v0.9.4 tag.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
GitHub user eshioji opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/565
STORM-839
This fixes the reported deadlock between `disruptor-worker-transfer-queue`
thread and `client-worker` thread, which seem to have been introduced by
STORM-329.
After reviewing the
20 matches
Mail list logo
