Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Distributed Queries #2202

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Apr 11, 2015
Merged

Distributed Queries #2202

merged 21 commits into from
Apr 11, 2015

Conversation

otoolep
Copy link
Contributor

@otoolep otoolep commented Apr 8, 2015

No description provided.

@otoolep otoolep force-pushed the distributed-queries-m branch 2 times, most recently from 4a39dd6 to dbd33b7 Compare April 9, 2015 22:54
@otoolep otoolep changed the title Use 64-bit Series IDs Distributed Queries Apr 9, 2015
@otoolep otoolep force-pushed the distributed-queries-m branch 4 times, most recently from 40b6866 to 2abe5b3 Compare April 10, 2015 22:09
@otoolep otoolep force-pushed the distributed-queries-m branch from b1a4df1 to b461a36 Compare April 10, 2015 23:11
otoolep added 4 commits April 10, 2015 16:19
No doubt about it, URL routing is definitely brittle and needs work.
With a max remote reponse of 1GB, testing is unable to proceed.
@otoolep otoolep force-pushed the distributed-queries-m branch from b461a36 to 5882f0b Compare April 10, 2015 23:26
}

// request to start streaming results
resp, err := http.Post(m.dataNodes[0].URL.String()+"/run_mapper", "application/json", bytes.NewReader(b))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be m.dataNode[rand.Intn(len(m.dataNodes))]to avoid a single node handling all the traffic? Or is m.dataNodes already randomized beforehand?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was thinking exactly the same thing myself.

#2242

@jwilder
Copy link
Contributor

jwilder commented Apr 11, 2015

Two comments but LGTM otherwise.

@otoolep
Copy link
Contributor Author

otoolep commented Apr 11, 2015

#2243 opened to track issue around Limit Reader.

@jwilder -- thanks for the 3rd set of eyes. Merging now.

otoolep added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2015
@otoolep otoolep merged commit 30fc6df into master Apr 11, 2015
@otoolep otoolep deleted the distributed-queries-m branch April 11, 2015 18:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants