Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1363#issuecomment-215415879
I nobody objects, I will merge this.
---
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
Github user mjsax closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694
---
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 feature
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-203830224
Closing this (also closing the JIRA) as Bobby's work
(https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/765) got merged and I don't have time to
work on this right now.
---
If your
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1031#issuecomment-178809384
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 have this feature
GitHub user mjsax opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1031
[storm-core] Added exception for emit to undeclared stream
`stream->component->grouper` does only contain streams that are not
consumed. Thus, I add entries for all streams (with key is `st
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/765#issuecomment-152122558
I did not find time to rerun the tests and fix #694. If you want to move on
with this PR, just go ahead... I will still try to get #694 in better shape ---
still hope I
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/765#issuecomment-150163728
Great analysis!
I would like to run this tests, too. Especially to work on the flushing of
batches. It's a pity that too many tuples times out in your test. To get
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/765#issuecomment-150250711
I am not sure how the metric relate to it... Furthermore, I also used
Aeolus on the current master and get 6x improvement (with acking disabled --
acking is currently
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/765#issuecomment-150255113
Make sense. It might be worth explore counting in batches... (ie, increase
a counter by "batch-size" for each batch). So we still get the correct value.
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/765#issuecomment-148548577
Thanks for clarification. :)
---
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
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/765#issuecomment-148540526
I had a look at the numbers. It's a lot of stuff and hard to parse for
me... I am not sure what you mean by "contradict the numbers"? Can you explain
in m
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/786#issuecomment-146839646
Shall I add failing builds if I encounter them?
---
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
Github user mjsax commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/786#discussion_r41617981
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/tuple/Tuple.java ---
@@ -37,9 +37,15 @@
/**
* Returns the global stream id (component + stream
Github user mjsax closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/786
---
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 feature
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/786#issuecomment-146838634
One side question: I linked my own GitHub repo to Travis. However, the
build fails very often (even if everything is ok). The Travis build of the
Storm repo seems
GitHub user mjsax reopened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/786
[STORM-1095] Tuple.getSourceGlobalStreamid() has wrong camel-case naming
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/mjsax/storm storm-1095
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/786#issuecomment-146361062
Just updated this PR.
---
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
GitHub user mjsax opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/786
[STORM-1095] Tuple.getSourceGlobalStreamid() has wrong camel-case naming
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/mjsax/storm storm-1095
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/786#issuecomment-146343033
It's up to you. I had this issues in mind, too... API breaking changes
might be inconvenient/problematic. Just let me know your decision.
---
If your project is set up
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-145473220
Hi, what is the next step?
---
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
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-145539778
Thx. Take your time; there is actually no rush. I was just curious :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-144060581
I just realized, that some commits from other people got added to this PR.
This confuses me. Can you guide me through the process Storm development is
following here? I am
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-144071648
I see. It's a github issue... Usually I rebase before updating a PR. This
time I did not... Thanks for the quick response.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-144211924
One question: There are a lot of changes in
`storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/generated/*` resulting from rebuild those
files with `genthrift.sh`. However, it seems to me
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/765#issuecomment-143900063
Curious to see first performance results :)
---
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
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-142977052
I did not have time yet. However, I am still on it... I did already some
more work for this PR that is not pushed yet (for example to support different
output batches
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-142980140
Ok. Hope to get it done over the weekend...
---
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
Github user mjsax commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/740#discussion_r39935812
--- Diff: storm-core/test/clj/backtype/storm/nimbus_test.clj ---
@@ -846,16 +846,6 @@
NIMBUS-SLOTS-PER-TOPOLOGY 8}]
(letlocals
Github user mjsax commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/740#discussion_r39936186
--- Diff: storm-core/test/clj/backtype/storm/nimbus_test.clj ---
@@ -846,16 +846,6 @@
NIMBUS-SLOTS-PER-TOPOLOGY 8}]
(letlocals
Github user mjsax commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/740#discussion_r39936261
--- Diff: storm-core/test/clj/backtype/storm/nimbus_test.clj ---
@@ -846,16 +846,6 @@
NIMBUS-SLOTS-PER-TOPOLOGY 8}]
(letlocals
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/704#issuecomment-141854364
"but this is not the correct way to do it" Do you refer to batching I work
on or you own changes?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
GitHub user mjsax opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/740
[STORM-1044] Setting dop to zero does not raise an error
- added IllegalArgumentException to .setBolt(...), .setSpout(...), and
.setStateSpout(...) in TopologyBuilder
You can merge this pull request
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-134682336
Here are some additional benchmark results with larger `--messageSize` (ie,
100 and 250). Those benchmarks are run in a 12 node cluster
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-134656876
I just checked some older benchmark result doing batching in user land, ie,
on top of Storm (= Aeolus). For this case, a batch size of 100 increased the
spout output rate
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-134315867
Hi, I did a few performance tests and unfortunately, the impact of my
changes is quite high. Not using batching in my branch (compared to master)
reduces throughput by 40
Github user mjsax commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#discussion_r37807820
--- Diff: storm-core/src/clj/backtype/storm/daemon/executor.clj ---
@@ -658,40 +688,42 @@
;;(log
Github user mjsax commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#discussion_r37800211
--- Diff: storm-core/src/clj/backtype/storm/daemon/executor.clj ---
@@ -445,6 +445,32 @@
ret
))
+(defn init-batching-buffer [worker
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-134371947
Type hinting improves by 10% :) But 30% is still a huge gap.
About batches that don't fill up. We need to introduce a timeout (and a
flushing thread or other flushing
GitHub user mjsax opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694
[STROM-855] Add tuple batching
- added parameter batch_size to TopologyBuilder
- added Batch class
- adopted Kryo (de)serialization for Tuple and Batch
- added Spout/Bolt output
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-133186983
I guess I need to close an re-open this PR to get the linkage to JIRA...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-133187814
Great!
Just a heads up: This is my first PR for Storm and I just started to learn
Clojure. Please review very carefully. Looking forward to your feedback.
---
If your
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-133194835
Sure. Is there any specific approach I should take? How to add/report those
result? I did a simple test already, using `ExclamationTopology` example.
Setting batch size
Github user mjsax commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/694#issuecomment-133198490
Thanks for your guidance! I will have a look at #521 and add some results.
May take a few days...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
GitHub user mjsax opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/530
JIRA-792
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/mjsax/storm master
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch
44 matches
Mail list logo
