While it is possible to extend anti-affinity to take care of this, I feel
it will cause confusion from a user perspective. As a user, when I think
about anti-affinity, what comes to mind right away is a relative relation
On the other hand, the current ask is not that, but a relation at an
application level w.r.t. a node. (Further, we might even think of extending
this at an operator level - which would mean do not deploy an operator on a
We would be better off clearly articulating and allowing users to configure
it seperately as against using anti-affinity.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <bhup...@datatorrent.com>
> Okay, I think that serves an alternate purpose of detecting any newly gone
> bad node and excluding it.
> +1 for covering the original scenario under anti-affinity.
> ~ Bhupesh
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Munagala Ramanath <r...@datatorrent.com>
> > It only takes effect after failures -- no way to exclude from the get-go.
> > Ram
> > On Dec 1, 2016 7:15 PM, "Bhupesh Chawda" <bhup...@datatorrent.com>
> > > As suggested by Sandesh, the parameter
> > > MAX_CONSECUTIVE_CONTAINER_FAILURES_FOR_BLACKLIST seems to do exactly
> > what
> > > is needed.
> > > Why would this not work?
> > >
> > > ~ Bhupesh
> > >
~Milind bee at gee mail dot com