Nimbus-HA and recommended value for topology.min.replication.count

Hi, This is with reference to: http://storm.apache.org/releases/2.0.0-SNAPSHOT/nimbus-ha-design.html For topology.min.replication.count, it says: Minimum number of nimbus hosts where the code must be replicated before leader nimbus can mark the topology as active and create assignments. Default

Re: New Committer/PMC Member: Hugo Louro

Congrats Hugo!! ~Satish. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Xin Wang wrote: > Congratulations! > > - Xin > > 2017-03-24 8:08 GMT+08:00 Jungtaek Lim : > > > Congrats Hugo! > > > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > 2017년 3월 24일 (금) 오전 3:28, Matthias J.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

I'm OK to continue release process if we plan to do bugfix release sooner. (say, within 1 month, or just after all opened storm-kafka-client issues will be addressed.) We have other storm-kafka-client issues which are all major or critical but not included to RC3 as well. Having them in 1.1.0 is

Re: New Committer/PMC Member: Hugo Louro

Congratulations! - Xin 2017-03-24 8:08 GMT+08:00 Jungtaek Lim : > Congrats Hugo! > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > 2017년 3월 24일 (금) 오전 3:28, Matthias J. Sax 님이 작성: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Congrats Hugo! > > > > On

Re: New Committer/PMC Member: Hugo Louro

Congrats Hugo! - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) 2017년 3월 24일 (금) 오전 3:28, Matthias J. Sax 님이 작성: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Congrats Hugo! > > On 3/23/17 9:32 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > > Activity in another email thread reminded me of something I

Re: [DISCUSS] Storm 2.0 Roadmap

Storm 2.0 migration to java in itself is a big win and would attract wider community and adoption. So my vote would be to resolve the first 3 items to get a release out. All the other featured mentioned are great to have but shouldn't be blockers for 2.0 release. -Harsha On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

I propose that we continue with the release and get this patch in next minor release (probably 1.1.1?). Users doesn't need to upgrade their cluster to get this change so I would say this is not a show-stopper for the release. -Harsha On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:18 AM P. Taylor Goetz

[DISCUSS] Storm 2.0 Roadmap

With the 1.1.0 release nearing completion, I’d like to turn our attention to 2.0 and develop a plan for what features, etc. to include. The following 3 are what I feel are the minimum for a 2.0 release. These could likely be resolved relatively quickly: * Performance — I’ve not benchmarked the

Re: New Committer/PMC Member: Hugo Louro

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Congrats Hugo! On 3/23/17 9:32 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > Activity in another email thread reminded me of something I forgot > to do… > > The Apache Storm PMC has voted to add Hugo Louro as a Committer > and PMC Member. > > Please join me in

New Committer/PMC Member: Hugo Louro

Activity in another email thread reminded me of something I forgot to do… The Apache Storm PMC has voted to add Hugo Louro as a Committer and PMC Member. Please join me in congratulating Hugo for his new role! (And my apologies for not sending out the announcement sooner. ;) ) -Taylor

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

Hugo, now that you are a PMC member your vote is binding. While releases can’t be vetoed (a release vote needs at least three +1s and more +1s than -1s), it’s typical to take negative votes under serious consideration. So considering Hugo’s -1 vote, do we want cancel in order to include the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

Since this is an external module connector perhaps we can get this fix onto a minor release instead of being a blocker. I will update the JIRA accordingly. > On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:58 AM, Hugo Da Cruz Louro > wrote: > > -1 (non binding) > > This blocker bug was just

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

-1 (non binding) This blocker bug was just reported - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2432 Here is the fix: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2027 I consider that this is a blocker bug because if the user choses UNCOMITTED_LATEST first poll strategy, no data gets polled at all.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

+1 for documenting and releasing. -Harsha On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:04 AM Jungtaek Lim wrote: > +1 to the latter. > > I'm in favor of documenting the change to release note, and also docs so > that website can be reflected. The users who are affected to the change > wouldn't

[GitHub] storm issue #2027: STORM-2432: Storm-Kafka-Client Trident Spout Seeks Incorr...

Github user harshach commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2027 +1 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the

[GitHub] storm issue #2027: STORM-2432: Storm-Kafka-Client Trident Spout Seeks Incorr...

Github user hmcl commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2027 This patch must be ported onto master branch as well. Thanks. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not

[GitHub] storm pull request #2027: STORM-2432: Storm-Kafka-Client Trident Spout Seeks...

GitHub user hmcl opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2027 STORM-2432: Storm-Kafka-Client Trident Spout Seeks Incorrect Offset With UNCOMMITTED_LATEST Strategy - Add check to execute first poll offset strategy only for the first poll rather than always

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

+1 to the latter. I'm in favor of documenting the change to release note, and also docs so that website can be reflected. The users who are affected to the change wouldn't be much, since using dependency management tool (Maven, Gradle, and so on) has been recommended for creating topology jar.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

Do we want to cancel this RC in order to better document the changes, or will documenting it in the release announcement suffice for now (provided documentation is added for subsequent releases)? I’m partial to the latter, but am open to others’ opinions. -Taylor > On Mar 22, 2017, at 9:49

Re: STORM-2426: Behaviour of ticks on KafkaSpout while Kafka is rebalancing

I'm not sure that KafkaSpout rebalancing blocks spout thread, but if it is, it shouldn't be. In fact any of Spout methods shouldn't be blocked longer to ensure message timeout works properly, since spout event handling (including calling nextTuple()) is done in single thread. For general

STORM-2426: Behaviour of ticks on KafkaSpout while Kafka is rebalancing

Hi, opened ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2426 about behaviour which causes first tuples to be emitted by Kafka Spout to fail after startup with long rebalancing period. Storm version 1.0.2. It seems that the system tick tuples that should be received every 30 seconds are