My previous mail explains it, but just forgot to add : -1 to cover this
under anti affinity.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Milind Barve <mili...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> between operators.
> 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
> particular node)
> 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
>> > 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
~Milind bee at gee mail dot com