Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-108339300
And like Bobby already said: many thanks for your continued work and
improvements, @eshioji!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/568#issuecomment-108338846
@eshioji wrote:
Also I have a question, maybe @miguno could help; I've removed the
graceful shutdown which tries to flush all pending message before the Client
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/275#issuecomment-93694857
I created [STORM-786](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-786) to
track the tick tuple acking. Pull request is already sent.
---
If your project is set up
GitHub user miguno opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/522
STORM-786: KafkaBolt should ack tick tuples
[STORM-512](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-512) (KafkaBolt
doesn't handle ticks properly) adds special-casing of tick tuples. What is
missing
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/275#issuecomment-93699373
My understanding is yes, you do need to ack tick tuples. See @nathanmarz
[comment](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/storm-user/ZEJabXT5nQA) from
some time back
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/275#issuecomment-93690832
Since KafkaBolt is extending BaseRichBolt, I think we should perform a
`collector.ack(input)` before `return`. Tick tuples must be acked like
normal tuples
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-82217610
@clockfly We may also want to check why we don't have the permissions to
close this PR ourselves.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-81736347
@d2r And btw I don't have permissions on GitHub to close this PR.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/463#issuecomment-81739459
I created [STORM-707](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-707) to
track this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
GitHub user miguno opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/463
Client (Netty): improving logging to help troubleshooting connection woes
These logging statements are not on a hot path, and `INFO` is the default
log level of Storm. These logging are filling
Github user miguno commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/456#discussion_r25774104
--- Diff: bin/storm ---
@@ -183,7 +209,16 @@ def exec_storm_class(klass, jvmtype=-server,
jvmopts=[], extrajars=[], args=[]
os.spawnvp(os.P_WAIT
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/456#issuecomment-77159580
Many thanks for the PR, Kai!
However if the topology is submitted with `storm shell`, this cannot
track exception because spawnvp seems to return no stdout
Github user miguno commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/456#discussion_r25774112
--- Diff: bin/storm ---
@@ -183,7 +209,16 @@ def exec_storm_class(klass, jvmtype=-server,
jvmopts=[], extrajars=[], args=[]
os.spawnvp(os.P_WAIT
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75713928
Oh, Taylor. Could you also update STORM-404 and STORM-510 as appropriate?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75634123
Phew. :-)
Thanks for merging, Taylor!
On 23.02.2015, at 22:06, P. Taylor Goetz notificati...@github.com wrote:
Disregard last message
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74927415
@nathanmarz Thanks for the detailed feedback on the max-retries issue. As
Bobby suggested, would you mind if we decouple the work on max-retries (tracked
at STORM-677
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74894542
FYI: I created [STORM-677: Maximum retries strategy may cause data
loss](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-677) to address the issue
that Bobby brought up
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74895041
PS: We may also want to update the original
[STORM-329](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329) ticket description
to reflect the changes in this PR
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74898690
Thanks, Taylor! Let me know if I can help with sorting out the test
failures.
Also regarding JIRA: I forgot to mention that it looks like we need to
update STORM
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74702215
And FWIW, with the code in this PR the total test suite takes about 5mins
to complete.
```
$ mvn clean install
...
[INFO
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74701138
I am seeing a lot of tests timing out with this change. Has anyone else
seen this?
Hmm. All the tests are passing for me (and they have been since a while
Github user miguno commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#discussion_r24738502
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -42,344 +42,577 @@
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
import
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74147926
If you need at-least-once processing you must use an acking topology, which
will allow Storm to replay lost messages. If instead you go with an unacking
topology
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74032874
This patch allows a worker to properly detect that the connection to a peer
becomes unavailable -- for whatever reason (the remote worker is dead or
restarting
GitHub user miguno opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428
STORM-329: fix cascading Storm failure by improving reconnection strategy
and buffering messages
This is an improved version of the original pull request discussed at
https://github.com/apache/storm
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73946399
I did exactly this in #429.
---
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
Github user miguno closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428
---
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
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73928303
I tried rebasing (also to fix the incorrect commit message that starts with
STORM-32*7*) but gave up after several failed attempts. Feel free to give it a
try though
GitHub user miguno opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429
STORM-329: fix cascading Storm failure by improving reconnection strategy
and buffering messages
**This PR contains the same code as
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428 but as a single commit
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-73667341
Many thanks for your review, Sean. I addressed your comments, see the new
commits in
https://github.com/miguno/storm/commits/0.10.0-SNAPSHOT-STORM-392-miguno-merge
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-73671537
PS: I just noticed that I put the wrong Storm ticket into the commit
https://github.com/miguno/storm/commit/8ebaaf8dbc63df3c2691e0cc3ac5102af7721ec3.
The `STORM-327
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-72653588
@tedxia (or @clockfly): Have you experienced similar Storm behavior as [I
described
above](https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-72652704) in your
patched
Github user miguno commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#discussion_r24039811
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -142,6 +147,15 @@ public void run
33 matches
Mail list logo
