Cool. Sounds good.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Chris Rohr <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good to me. I can created a config option that has 3 options: all, > local, embedded and will default to all. Then on startup will look at the > option and go from there. > > Thanks, > Chris > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Chris Rohr <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Currently I have been setting up the Blur console to run along side > > > controllers, where it would run in its own process but would utilize > the > > > blur config file to get the connection to zookeeper and then determine > > > controllers to connect to from there. > > > > > > After some more thinking and from experience of use with the previous > > > version, I'm rethinking this approach slightly and wanted some > opinions. > > > With the way I had started to implement, this would mean the console > > would > > > access blur through all of the controllers (utilizing the round-robin > > > nature of the blur client). This has some implications on performance, > > > where the console itself could bring down all of the controllers. > > > > > > On a system I am currently using, we ended up using a portion of the > > > controllers for things like the console and shell type tools and used > the > > > other controllers for the running application to use. This way if the > > > console does something bad, it won't bring down everything. > > > > > > My proposed change is to still have the console run on a controller > > server, > > > but only use the local instances to connect to blur instead of all of > > them. > > > This still could all anyone to run the console on any of the > controllers > > > if they want, but would still only reduce the load to that server's > > > controllers. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > I think by default using the RR approach is fine. You could as you are > > suggesting have a configuration item that would allow for the console to > be > > limited to a subset of the controllers. I also had another thought. > What > > if we let the console startup a controller embedded? That way it would > > have a view into the shards even if someone shutdown all the regular > > controllers. What do you think? > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > >
