Github user harshach commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
Thanks @HeartSaVioR . Merged into 1.0.x, 1-x, master branches.
---
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 no
Github user ptgoetz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
+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 wishes so, or if the feature
Github user harshach commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@HeartSaVioR I am +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 wishes s
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@harshach I commented your concern so could you revisit this?
@ptgoetz Could you also take a look?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@harshach
And sync-processes (`get-valid-new-worker-ids`) checks topology files
before launching workers.
If there's an issue which corrupts topology code or not having topology
code, sy
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@harshach
`sync-supervisor` writes local assignment after code download for topology
is completed.
Since `sync-processes` launches worker based on local assignment, there's a
guarantee
Github user harshach commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@HeartSaVioR I had a fix before for similar issue here
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/401/files . I don't see much of the code
here. Can you take a look if that particular case is handled her
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@satishd Yeah it would be really better. Thanks for the tip. Applied.
---
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 proje
Github user satishd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@HeartSaVioR You may want to use `(declare rm-topo-files)` in the start so
that you do not need to move `defn sync-processes` for handling forward
references. This may make it easy to review the code
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
Added some comments. I'll squash once reviewing is done.
---
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 h
Github user satishd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@HeartSaVioR added resolution details in the description of the PR. Adding
one more point here: `(kill-existing-workers-with-change-in-components
supervisor existing-assignment new-assignment)` is no
Github user satishd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
+1 LGTM.
---
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 f
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
I'd like to get reviewed by @kishorvpatil if (but only if) he's available
since it removes the changeset of STORM-1561. Since it's critical issue and
related to race condition I'd also like to ge
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
Thanks @HeartSaVioR. It looks good.
+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 thi
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@arunmahadevan
This works perfectly.
- Writing new assignment
```
6700 {:storm-id "test-topology2-4-1467185073", :executors ([7 7] [4 4] [1
1]), :resources [0.0 0.0 0.0]},
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@HeartSaVioR thanks for the clarification, it makes sense now. Can you also
check rebalance from 2 -> 3 workers ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have you
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@arunmahadevan Sorry for confusing: rebalance is done from 3 workers to 2
workers, and since all executors map are changed so all workers are disallowed
and two new workers are launched.
---
If
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
@HeartSaVioR The changes looks good. May be you can add some comments in
sync-process and mk-synchronize-supervisor on what each is supposed to do.
In your comment where you rebalanced
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/aad9669643d5ba8552a2d5b62982c8f31d6471cd
I don't find clear usage from introduction of StandaloneSupervisor, so I
guess it would be better to ask or wai
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
Build passes on storm-core so it's unrelated.
---
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 fe
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1528
Note: This patch removes the change from STORM-1561 since supervisor
originally checks the change of executors in same port.
Please refer `read-allocated-workers` and `matches-an-assignment?`
21 matches
Mail list logo
