FYI https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-833
Anastasis On 21 Δεκ 2013, at 6:09 μ.μ., Anastasis Andronidis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi again, > > I send you this link for further info on the subject: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-588 > > The voteToHalt() function is marking the vertex as halted for the next > superstep! Not the current. I agree that we should document this > functionality more thoroughly to avoid future problems. > > On the other hand you pin point a very interesting subject. I agree with you > that more cases should be handled like: > > 1) voteToStop() : Immediately stop the vertex compute and suppress any > further calculations on top of that. (e.g. aggregation) > 2) voteToTerminate(): Immediately stop the vertex compute, suppress any > further calculations on top of that and deactivate the vertex so even if any > message reaches it, will not come alive. > > I will open a JIRA ticket on the proposal, feel free to comment : ) Thanks in > advance! > > Cheers, > Anastasis > > On 21 Δεκ 2013, at 12:48 μ.μ., Ηλίας Καπουράνης <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> yeah I know about the corner case. What do you mean the aggregated results >> from superstep number 1? Between supersteps, there are the "aggregator" >> supersteps. And they are like this: >> - node superstep No.1 >> - aggregator superstep No.1 >> - node superstep No.2 etc etc >> >> So if a node at "node superstep No.1" votes to halt, he shouldn't be >> included in the aggregator phase which comes next, right? >> >> My question is: >> why the node gets aggregated if he has voted to halt? Doesn't "vote to halt" >> mean that he wants to stop? >> >> >> >> Στις 20/12/2013 11:35 μμ, ο/η Anastasis Andronidis έγραψε: >>> Hello, >>> >>> what you actually see it is an expected behavior from the aggregators. The >>> results you are taking in the superstep number 2, are the aggregated >>> results from superstep number 1. >>> >>> There is a small corner case though. In superstep 0 the aggregators are >>> off. This will change on next release. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Anastasis >>> >>> On 20 Δεκ 2013, at 4:48 μ.μ., [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> Hello there, >>>> >>>> I am using the Graph API and I have noticed something. >>>> If a node votes to halt at a superstep, we suppose that he won't be part >>>> of the aggregation phase. >>>> BUT he is included in the aggregation phase of the next superstep! >>>> >>>> To be more precise: >>>> >>>> - Imagine we have a graph with 10 nodes. >>>> - At superstep 1 node K votes to halt. >>>> - At superstep 2 we check the number of the nodes aggregated and its 10. >>>> (it had to be 9) >>>> - At superstep 3 we check again the number of the nodes aggregated and >>>> then it is 9! (which is the correct) >>>> >>>> This persists only with the aggregators. Node K doesn't work at superstep >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> Can someone confirm that this is a problem or am i missing something? >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >> >> > >
