Github user errordaiwa commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-122514207
Great!
@HeartSaVioR Sincerely thank you for working on this!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-122119993
Since many users are already affected this situation, it should be included
to 0.9.x line.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-122113950
+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
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630
---
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 HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-122124259
It is merged to master, and I'm working on backport to 0.10.x and 0.9.x.
---
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 pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-122131324
I merged this into 0.10.x-branch and 0.9.x-branch by cherry-picked.
Since there're different available sets of config validators among branches
- master,
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-121764919
@revans2 Thanks for confirming. :)
During running performance test I can't see any failed tuples from the UI
in 10 minutes, so I think it is safe to merge.
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-121150967
@errordaiwa @amontalenti
1000ms timeout makes sense to me.
Actually 100ms timeout also makes sense to me, but I'd like to know our
opinions about load
Github user errordaiwa commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-121140113
I do a performance test using storm 0.9.3 with disruptor queue 2.10.4. The
target topology is metioned in
[STORM-503](https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/625). To
Github user arunmahadevan commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630#issuecomment-121126833
+1 @errordaiwa how is the cpu usage with high bolt count when idle ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
GitHub user errordaiwa opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/630
[STORM-935] Update Disruptor queue version to 2.10.4
Update version of Disruptor queue to 2.10.4, consumer of queue will use
waitfor method without timeout. Test on storm 0.9.3, works fine.
You
11 matches
Mail list logo
