Add druid.indexer.server.maxChatRequests for QoS; deprecate separate ports.#2503
Add druid.indexer.server.maxChatRequests for QoS; deprecate separate ports.#2503fjy merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
gianm
commented
Feb 19, 2016
gianm
commented
- Add druid.indexer.server.maxChatRequests, which sets up a QoSFilter on the main Jetty server.
- Deprecate druid.indexer.runner.separateIngestionEndpoint
- Deprecate druid.indexer.server.chathandler.*
|
see discussion on #2419 |
|
Running io.druid.server.initialization.JettyQosTest |
…ports. - Add druid.indexer.server.maxChatRequests, which sets up a QoSFilter on the main Jetty server. - Deprecate druid.indexer.runner.separateIngestionEndpoint - Deprecate druid.indexer.server.chathandler.*
|
@nishantmonu51 can you take a look? |
|
@fjy fixed the test |
| slowElapsed.addAndGet(System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime); | ||
| } | ||
| catch (InterruptedException e) { | ||
| // BE COOL |
|
👍 |
|
would like feedback from at least a couple of @nishantmonu51 @drcrallen @guobingkun @pjain1 or @cheddar on this one, as it is a follow up to https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/druid-development/hfCggehFl_I/INfjEyxbBQAJ and deprecates the feature introduced in #1929. |
|
looks good to me, 👍 from my side, still keeping it open for others to review it. |
|
Suggest leaving open and bringing up in the dev sync to see if anyone wants to comment (also stating why this PR is needed). Then merge if no comment. |
|
I didn't look too closely, but the goal of #1929 was to provide for clear separation of ingestion and query resources. As long as this maintains that (which it looks like it does), I'm on board. |
|
👍 |
Add druid.indexer.server.maxChatRequests for QoS; deprecate separate ports.
| Jerseys.addResource(binder, ChatHandlerResource.class); | ||
|
|
||
| if (properties.containsKey(MAX_CHAT_REQUESTS_PROPERTY)) { | ||
| final int maxRequests = Integer.parseInt(MAX_CHAT_REQUESTS_PROPERTY); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't believe I missed this... I'm pretty sure this is NOT what you wanted to do. Also this needs a parse catcher
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does it need a parse catcher? I think it's ok for this to blow up and let Guice report the error if you pass something that isn't a number
6 participants
