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 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 p
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 w
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 well
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 this
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-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 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 Gi
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 wrote:
>
> Disregard last message. It was a merge mista
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 enabl
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, yo
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75616572
I merged this locally, and it tested out fine, but there are now a few
merge conflicts. Resolving them seemed straightforward, but now the behavior I
see in the unit tests
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-75022795
FYI: I took the opportunity to update
[DEVELOPER.md](https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/master/DEVELOPER.md#building)
with documentation how to run tests selectively in t
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74950459
For the build, I just ran `mvn clean install` at the top level of the
source tree.
For the repl, I ran (in the Intellij repl):
```
(load-file "/path/t
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74947350
What were the exact REPL and mvn commands?
> On 18.02.2015, at 21:48, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>
> @miguno Regarding the merge to 0.9.x, I didn't have t
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74944765
@miguno Regarding the merge to 0.9.x, I didn't have that much time to debug
the test failures. There are 2 errors in `auth_test.clj` when run as part of
the maven build. W
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) fro
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74917930
@nathanmarz I'd like to move the conversation over to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-677.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email a
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 li
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 STORM-
Github user ptgoetz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74897829
@miguno No problem, I can do the merge to master. I've done a test merge to
the 0.9.3 branch, and it didn't seem too bad, but I'm still debugging some test
failures.
---
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 your
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 this
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74894825
> I'd also like to apply it to the 0.9.x branch as I feel it's an important
fix.
That's a good idea, Taylor. Would you also like volunteer to merge this PR
in gen
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 ptgoetz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#discussion_r24909769
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -42,344 +42,577 @@
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
import backtyp
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74711484
Glad to hear it was only a temporary issue. :-)
To summarize the current status of this pull request:
- We have two +1 already.
- The max-reconnection-a
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 se
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 t
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 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-74700594
I am seeing a lot of tests timing out with this change. Has anyone else
seen this?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
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 inten
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 backtyp
Github user miguno commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#discussion_r24742354
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -42,344 +42,577 @@
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
import backtype
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 backtype
Github user revans2 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#discussion_r24681006
--- Diff: storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/messaging/netty/Client.java ---
@@ -42,344 +42,577 @@
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
import backtyp
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 backtyp
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 gua
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 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
wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback, Nathan.
>
> As far as I understand this patch does not
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429#issuecomment-74050954
Thanks for your feedback, Nathan.
As far as I understand this patch does not enable backpressure. But:
because there is no backpressure (yet) that we can rely on, t
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 there
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 a
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 case
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 t
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 enabl
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73941559
Closed in favor of updated PR at https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/429.
The updated PR uses a single commit to ensure we have a cleaner commit
history in our Sto
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 fo
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 comm
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 -- ma
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 proje
Github user clockfly commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73925451
Do we want to fix the commit log?
---
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 clockfly commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73925368
+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
Github user miguno commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/428#issuecomment-73924851
Note: All of the code review comments by of @clockfly above that were
added before this pull was created have already been addressed.
---
If your project is set up for it
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
https://github.com/apache/storm/
57 matches
Mail list logo
