> we should take care of designing a better API for the placement policy +1 Our placement policy is super complex and confusing.
> We could also take into account the ability of adding labels/tags to bookies. Can you add more context and color to your statement? In the k8s world we do have a way to add tags. Can you please elaborate what you are thinking? On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:23 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Il lun 20 mag 2019, 05:03 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > +1 from me. `Cookie` was designed for keeping the informations that is > > associated with a bookie (e.g. disk layouts, bookie id and etc). > > > > I think it is making sense to have `FaultZoneId` stored as part of the > > cookie. > > > > I agree. > > But we should take care of designing a better API for the placement policy. > We are changing signatures quite often, adding parameters, changing return > type.... > > We could also take into account the ability of adding labels/tags to > bookies. > > Enrico > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 9:48 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri < > > jujj...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > In the current code, bookie to faultDomain mapping is supplied through > > > different methods. Salesforce uses a script to read yaml file which > > > contains racks/machines mapping. But I am wondering why can't we put > this > > > info in the Cookie? Assuming that these machines can never move across > > > fault zones. > > > > > > Currently cookies contain version, Host, JourlanDirs, ledgerDirs, and > > > instanceId. > > > If we add faultzoneId to it, it will be always available for everyone > to > > > look into. > > > Is there any reason why it would be a bad idea? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -- > > > Jvrao > > > --- > > > First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, > then > > > you win. - Mahatma Gandhi > > > > > > -- Jvrao --- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
