[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15231219#comment-15231219
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXCORE-10:
----------------------------------------
Github user ishark commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/250#discussion_r58954902
--- Diff:
engine/src/main/java/com/datatorrent/stram/plan/physical/PhysicalPlan.java ---
@@ -386,6 +472,38 @@ public PhysicalPlan(LogicalPlan dag, PlanContext ctx) {
this.undeployOpers.clear();
}
+ public void setAntiAffinityForContainers(LogicalPlan dag,
Collection<AffinityRule> affinityRules, Map<PTOperator, PTContainer>
operatorContainerMap)
--- End diff --
Both are possible ways of doing it. This is more consistent with how node
locality is handled i.e. PTOperator contains list of operators that should be
co-allocated. Advantage of having the anti-affinity list of containers in each
container is it makes it easy to assign host to container requests based on
anti-affinity list.
> Enable non-affinity of operators per node (not containers)
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: APEXCORE-10
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> Project: Apache Apex Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Amol Kekre
> Assignee: Isha Arkatkar
> Labels: roadmap
>
> The issue happens on cloud which provides virtual cores with software like
> Xen underneath. In effect if CPU intensive operators land up on same node we
> have a resource bottleneck,
> Need to create an attribute that does the following
> - Operators A & B should not be on same node
> - Stram should use this attribute to try to get containers on different node
> It is understood that the user is making an explicit choice to use NIC
> instead of stream local optimization
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
