incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Rohr <rohr.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Blur Console Runtime Question
Date Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:33:05 GMT
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