re Kafka
> > > nodes,
> > > > the number of partitions which is managed by one Kafka node would be
> > > > unchanged.
> > > > So if we can support 30K TPS with 1000 topics using 3 nodes, then we
> > can
> > > > still get 60K TPS with
page
> 121)
> > -
> > >> are these using different namespaces? I ask because I think the
> current
> > >> impl isolates the container per namespace, so if you are limited to
> 180
> > >> containers, I can see how there will be container removal/restar
if there are any kafka experts here that can
> >> provide more comments on the topics/partition handling question? I will
> >> also ask for some additional feedback from other colleagues.
> >>
> >>
> >> I will gather some more comments to share, bu
ner get reused for many different
>> namespaces?)
>>
>>
>> I'm interested to know if there are any kafka experts here that can
>> provide more comments on the topics/partition handling question? I will
>> also ask for some additional feedback from other colleag
wanted to start off with
> these. Will continue next week after the long (US holiday) weekend.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Tyson
>
>
> ____
> From: Dominic Kim
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 1:58:55 AM
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Subject: Re
nks
Tyson
From: Dominic Kim <style9...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 1:58:55 AM
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Subject: Re: New scheduling algorithm proposal.
Dear Whiskers.
I uploaded the material that I used to give a speech at last biweekly
meetin
with current implementation
3. New scheduling algorithm proposal: Autonomous Container Scheduling
4. Review previous issues with new scheduling algorithm
5. Pros and cons of new scheduling algorithm
6. Performance evaluation with prototyping
I hope this is helpful for many Whiskers to understand the issues
Hi Tyson
Thank you for comments.
First, total data size in Kafka would not be changed, since the number of
activation requests will be same though we activate more topics.
Same amount of data will be just split into different topics, so there
would be no need for more disk space in Kafka.
But it
Dear all.
Does anyone have any comments on this?
Any comments or opinions would be greatly welcome : )
I think we need around following changes to take this in.
1. SPI supports for ContainerProxy and ContainerPool ( I already opened PR
for this:
Thank you for the response Markus and Christian.
Yes I agree that we need to discuss this proposal in abstract way instead
in conjunction it with any specific technology because we can take better
software stack if possible.
Let me answer your questions line by line.
## Does not wait for
Hey Dominic,
Thank you for the very detailed writeup. Since there is a lot in here, please
allow me to rephrase some of your proposals to see if I understood correctly.
I'll go through point-by-point to try to keep it close to your proposal.
**Note:** This is a result of an extensive
11 matches
Mail list logo
