 |
 |
Andy I am not sure I see the connection between assigning query to a different czar and your comment "if we explode queries into 1000's of pieces and then try to handle reassembly in a single place" I do like the idea of assigning query to a different char. It'd help not only with balancing load between czars, but also with things like gracefully taking down a czar. Let's have this discussion on the qserv mailing list, there are others that will surely be interested in this topic. I'm happy to turn that into story/stories/epics. Let's wait few more days to see where this email discussion (and qserv hangout discussion?) will take us, then we can readjust the plan wrt to czar failover. Thanks Jacek On 09/04/2015 12:36 PM, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote: > Hi Jacek, > > Perhaps we need a new story. My last comment on failover pretty much > said that I don't think it's worth all of the effort from a practical > stand-point. However, there is a related item that (sort of) involves > failover. I'm thinking how we could load balance czar's after the fact. > The idea is that it might be interesting if we explore being able to > reassign queries to differt czars after the query is started. This would > give us flexibility on how we distribue the reassembly load. As it > stands now, the system probably won't scale very well if we explode > queries into 1000's of pieces and then try to handle reassembly in a > single place. > > Let me know if this thought process is something we should explore. > > Andy ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1