IMHO, it's a question about fault-tolerance. If you have a single worker per node per topology, the impact in failure case (ie, rack going down) on a topology is low. Of course, all topologies using this failure rack are effected.
If you use multiple workers for a single topology on the same supervisor, the impact is high. In fact, if you use a single supervisor, the whole topology goes down. On the other hand, it might effect less topologies... Thus, it's a tradeoff you need to consider by yourself. -Matthias On 08/07/2015 09:24 AM, Denis DEBARBIEUX wrote: > Hi, > > I am always doing like that. I will be interested if this invariant had > been updated > > Denis > > Le 07/08/2015 08:47, 이승진 a écrit : >> >> I read articles about this before suggesting this. >> >> >> >> And I tried to run a topology in 2 workers in a same node, but >> performance was bad at that moment, even though resource usage was not >> that high. >> >> (Sorry that I cannot mention exact metrics since I didn't keep it) >> >> >> >> I remember that this is because inter process communication is expensive. >> >> >> >> This recommendation is still valid and should I use storm that way? >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le > logiciel antivirus Avast. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
