[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14309468#comment-14309468
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-329:
--------------------------------------
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-73276378
Thanks for the follow-up, @tedxia.
It looks as if I was able to report progress. My conversation with
@clockfly earlier today was very helpful in this regard -- thanks, Sean!
I have refactored/rewritten our Netty Client code (`Client.java`). The
first experiments using this new code are positive: The upstream bolts do not
die anymore if the downstream bolts die (cf. my test scenario / test topology
above), and as soon as the downstream bolts return back to life they will
receive and process new input tuples.
I'll have to do some follow-up work on the code -- there is at least one
piece of it that I do not like because it's more of a hack -- as well as
perform additional tests next week, of course. By then I should also be able
to share the test topology I was referring to above so that you guys can
reproduce the same test/failure setup.
> Add Option to Config Message handling strategy when connection timeout
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: STORM-329
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329
> Project: Apache Storm
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.9.2-incubating
> Reporter: Sean Zhong
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: Netty
> Attachments: storm-329.patch, worker-kill-recover3.jpg
>
>
> This is to address a [concern brought
> up|https://github.com/apache/incubator-storm/pull/103#issuecomment-43632986]
> during the work at STORM-297:
> {quote}
> [~revans2] wrote: Your logic makes since to me on why these calls are
> blocking. My biggest concern around the blocking is in the case of a worker
> crashing. If a single worker crashes this can block the entire topology from
> executing until that worker comes back up. In some cases I can see that being
> something that you would want. In other cases I can see speed being the
> primary concern and some users would like to get partial data fast, rather
> then accurate data later.
> Could we make it configurable on a follow up JIRA where we can have a max
> limit to the buffering that is allowed, before we block, or throw data away
> (which is what zeromq does)?
> {quote}
> If some worker crash suddenly, how to handle the message which was supposed
> to be delivered to the worker?
> 1. Should we buffer all message infinitely?
> 2. Should we block the message sending until the connection is resumed?
> 3. Should we config a buffer limit, try to buffer the message first, if the
> limit is met, then block?
> 4. Should we neither block, nor buffer too much, but choose to drop the
> messages, and use the built-in storm failover mechanism?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
