Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-76072022
Patch ported and merged to 0.9.x branch.
Benchmarked several topologies (both core and Trident) before (0.9.3) and
after (0.9.4-SNAPSHOT) this patch and found no
Github user 3in commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-76130337
@ptgoetz
If you have the resources, testing an RC and reporting back is the best way
to accelerate a release.
-
where do i get the rc, i will have a try,
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75713928
Oh, Taylor. Could you also update STORM-404 and STORM-510 as appropriate?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75891084
@danielschonfeld Soon. ;)
We are probably a handful of weeks out, hopefully less.
If you have the resources, testing an RC and reporting back is the best
Github user danielschonfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75878755
@ptgoetz sorry for being the newbie here, but does this mean a new jar will
be built of 0.9.3 that will include this? or will we have to wait for 0.10.0?
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75867311
I finally got this successfully back ported to the 0.9.x branch, with all
tests passing. I will merge that soon after more testing and update all
associated JIRAs.
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75879324
@miguno yep, that's what I meant.
---
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 user danielschonfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75881077
@ptgoetz what is the time frame for 0.9.4? (roughly)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75879629
@danielschonfeld No worries. There will be a 0.9.4 release that includes
this fix. No need to wait for 0.10.0.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75634123
Phew. :-)
Thanks for merging, Taylor!
On 23.02.2015, at 22:06, P. Taylor Goetz notificati...@github.com wrote:
Disregard last
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429
---
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 is
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75631663
Disregard last message. It was a merge mistake (picked right when I should
have picked left).
All tests are passing now.
---
If your project is set up for it,
Github user nathanmarz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74914806
Nimbus only knows a worker is having trouble when it stops sending
heartbeats. If a worker gets into a bad state, the worst thing to do is have it
continue trying to
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74927415
@nathanmarz Thanks for the detailed feedback on the max-retries issue. As
Bobby suggested, would you mind if we decouple the work on max-retries (tracked
at STORM-677)
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74894542
FYI: I created [STORM-677: Maximum retries strategy may cause data
loss](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-677) to address the issue
that Bobby brought up in
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74895041
PS: We may also want to update the original
[STORM-329](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329) ticket description
to reflect the changes in this PR.
---
If
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74885134
+1 I was able to verify the fix, and am in favor of merging. I'd also like
to apply it to the 0.9.x branch as I feel it's an important fix.
---
If your project is set up
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74898690
Thanks, Taylor! Let me know if I can help with sorting out the test
failures.
Also regarding JIRA: I forgot to mention that it looks like we need to
update
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74702215
And FWIW, with the code in this PR the total test suite takes about 5mins
to complete.
```
$ mvn clean install
...
[INFO]
Github user revans2 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#discussion_r24824540
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -42,344 +42,577 @@
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
import
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74701138
I am seeing a lot of tests timing out with this change. Has anyone else
seen this?
Hmm. All the tests are passing for me (and they have been since a while).
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74702976
I don't it could just be my mac acting funny. I'll dig into it, but don't
block the pull request on me. I saw similar things on a different pull request
that corrected
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74696132
I am +1 for the code as is. Perhaps a separate JIRA for the reconnection
attempts would be best. The issue has been in for quite a while now, and this
code was not
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74707726
OK It is something odd with my mac. It looks like the difference is wired
vs wireless networking :), or possibly even switching between the two.
---
If your project is
Github user miguno commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#discussion_r24738502
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -42,344 +42,577 @@
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
import
Github user revans2 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#discussion_r24680701
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -42,344 +42,577 @@
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
import
Github user danielschonfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74130344
Doesn't dropping the messages coming from a non ack/fail caring spout
negate the 'at least once' attempt of storm? I mean doesn't that kinda force
you to make all
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74147926
If you need at-least-once processing you must use an acking topology, which
will allow Storm to replay lost messages. If instead you go with an unacking
topology (= no
Github user nathanmarz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74036235
I retract my earlier -1. It was mentioned that this enables backpressure
for unacked topologies. Is this the case? If so, this is a great new feature of
Storm and
Github user clockfly commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74084548
+1
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Michael G. Noll notificati...@github.com
wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Nathan.
As far as I
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74032874
This patch allows a worker to properly detect that the connection to a peer
becomes unavailable -- for whatever reason (the remote worker is dead or
restarting, there was
Github user clockfly commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73925561
Something like git rebase -i upstream/master
---
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 miguno opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428
STORM-329: fix cascading Storm failure by improving reconnection strategy
and buffering messages
This is an improved version of the original pull request discussed at
Github user clockfly commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73932513
I see, there are multiple remote-merging, which then make rebase
impossible.
How about create a patch file against master and then apply the patch with
new
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73946399
I did exactly this in #429.
---
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 miguno closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428
---
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 is
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73928303
I tried rebasing (also to fix the incorrect commit message that starts with
STORM-32*7*) but gave up after several failed attempts. Feel free to give it a
try though --
GitHub user miguno opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429
STORM-329: fix cascading Storm failure by improving reconnection strategy
and buffering messages
**This PR contains the same code as
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428 but as a single commit
Github user danielschonfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74026208
I admit to not understanding all the intricacies of the code as i'm still
coming to terms with the different parts of storm. However, does this PR
handle the
39 matches
Mail list logo
