incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron McCurry <amccu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Blur Console Runtime Question
Date Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:52:45 GMT
Cool.  Sounds good.


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Chris Rohr <rohr.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds good to me.  I can created a config option that has 3 options: all,
> local, embedded and will default to all.  Then on startup will look at the
> option and go from there.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Chris Rohr <rohr.chris@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently I have been setting up the Blur console to run along side
> > > controllers, where it would run in its own process but would utilize
> the
> > > blur config file to get the connection to zookeeper and then determine
> > > controllers to connect to from there.
> > >
> > > After some more thinking and from experience of use with the previous
> > > version, I'm rethinking this approach slightly and wanted some
> opinions.
> > >  With the way I had started to implement, this would mean the console
> > would
> > > access blur through all of the controllers (utilizing the round-robin
> > > nature of the blur client).  This has some implications on performance,
> > > where the console itself could bring down all of the controllers.
> > >
> > > On a system I am currently using, we ended up using a portion of the
> > > controllers for things like the console and shell type tools and used
> the
> > > other controllers for the running application to use.  This way if the
> > > console does something bad, it won't bring down everything.
> > >
> > > My proposed change is to still have the console run on a controller
> > server,
> > > but only use the local instances to connect to blur instead of all of
> > them.
> > >  This still could all anyone to run the console on any of the
> controllers
> > > if they want, but would still only reduce the load to that server's
> > > controllers.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > I think by default using the RR approach is fine.  You could as you are
> > suggesting have a configuration item that would allow for the console to
> be
> > limited to a subset of the controllers.  I also had another thought.
>  What
> > if we let the console startup a controller embedded?  That way it would
> > have a view into the shards even if someone shutdown all the regular
> > controllers.  What do you think?
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message