I don't think we want to take much of a perf hit. I'll check it out. Another reason to have one version of Consensus is that it's currently not possible to go from 1 node to 3.
MIke On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm curious also what kind of perf impact we are willing to take for the > un-replicated case. I think single-node Kudu performing well is actually > nice from an adoption standpoint (many people have workloads which fit on a > single machine). Would be good to have some simple verification that the > write perf of single-node raft isn't substantially worse. > > -Todd > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, David Alves <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > My (and I suspect Todd's) fear here is that we _think_ it's ok but > we're > > > not totally sure it works in all cases. > > > > > > > Yep, I'm in the same boat. I haven't seen recent evidence that it doesn't > > work, though. > > > > > > > Regarding the tests, I guess just flip it and see what happens on > ctest? > > > > > > > Yeah, it fails of course but mostly for silly reasons related to test > > setup. Working on that. > > > > > > > Regarding the upgrade path, I think we'd need to test this at some > scale, > > > i.e. fill up a cluster using the current version, with local consensus, > > and > > > then replace the binaries with the new version, without it. > > > > > > > +1 SGTM. I don't mind doing that. > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
