With 0.9.0.1 we didn’t have to use setNumWorkers or topology.workers. Storm was 
automatically distributing…I am trying to understand why the upgrade to 0.9.3 
is not doing the same?

If this is the only way, we can make that change. But just want to be sure. 
Thank you very much for the help.

From: Harsha [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 5:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is the toplogy.workers is hardcoded to 1

I am not sure I follow. You are not setting numWorkers in your topology so by 
default this will 1 worker. If you deploy a topology it will be assigned to one 
worker. If you want to distribute the topology among multiple workers add 
conf.setNumWorkers(desired_workers)



On Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 02:12 PM, Srividhya Shanmugam wrote:

I guess it’s a problem….

I am looking at the following lines in Nimbus.clj in defn 
compute-new-task->node+port  function

total-slots-to-use (min (storm-conf TOPOLOGY-WORKERS)

                                (+ (count available-slots) (count 
alive-assigned)))



If the storm-conf does not have the TOPOLOGY-WORKERS property set, it should 
calculate based on available slots.



But the nimbus is launched with conf – where the topology.workers is set to 1. 
That’s due to this property being defaulted to 1 in defaults.yaml, that gets 
read in Utils class.

This is merged with storm.conf file. Since the storm.conf file does not have 
this property, the default is used.(hardcoded in default.yaml)



Isn’t this a bug?



Thanks,

Srividhya



From: Harsha [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:44 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Why is the toplogy.workers is hardcoded to 1



Are you settting numWorkers in you topology config like here 
https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/master/examples/storm-starter/src/jvm/storm/starter/WordCountTopology.java#L92





On Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Srividhya Shanmugam wrote:

Thanks for the reply Harsha. We have distributed supervisor nodes (2) and a 
nimbus node. The storm.yaml file has topology.workers property commented out. 
When a topology gets submitted that has one spout and a bolt with parallelism 
hint of 10 for each, before 0.9.3 upgrade storm distributes  this work across 
multiple worker process. The supervisor slots configured in the three nodes has 
a value 6701, 6702, 6703.



When such topology is submitted in storm now(after the upgrade), it’s just one 
worker process that gets created with 21 executor threads. Shouldn’t storm 
distribute the work?



From: Harsha [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:33 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Why is the toplogy.workers is hardcoded to 1



Srividhya,

        Storm topologies requires at least one worker to be available to run. 
Hence the config will set as 1 for the topology.workers as default value. Can 
you explain in more detail what you are trying to achieve.

Thanks,

Harsha





On Thu, Feb 26, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Srividhya Shanmugam wrote:

I have commented this property in the storm.yaml. But still it always defaults 
to 1 after we upgraded storm to 0.9.3. Any idea why its hardcoded?



This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary and 
intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error please delete it immediately.





This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary and 
intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error please delete it immediately.



This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary and 
intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error please delete it immediately.


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary and 
intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error please delete it immediately.

Reply via email to