I'm not convinced we're yet in a position to trigger the complicated class
of bugs you describe, Kevin. However, the case for being able to exercise
basic functionality is pressing. I'd rather focus on enabling developers
to do this ASAP, and focus on the more complicated setups later.
-=Bill
I think keeping a multi-machine setup for testing is important since it's
much closer to actual deployment (and it'll catch a class of bugs that
might not show up when everything's on localhost). Also as a technical note
as far as I know you can't run more than one slave instance per VM when
you're
IMHO, optimizing for development makes the most sense (of course, i have
the biased perspective of a developer). As more formal installation
routines are crafted, it will make a lot of sense to use these directly
within the development environment (e.g. generate deb packages, install
them in the v
Whats the end goal that we want to have with the vagrant image, easier
development and testing or as a sample setup for a small cluster. I think
that for simplicity keeping it all on one vm for development and initial
testing is the best approach and then perhaps for the end to end tests we
can use
Should i take this a step further and use one machine for everything? I
realize this is less 'pure', but purity doesn't help folks much if they
need to buy a new computer to use it.
-=Bill
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Jake Farrell wrote:
> +1, good call
>
> -Jake
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014
+1, might also allow us to optionally stand up 2 more master machines for a
redundant cluster in the "future".
-Toby.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Bill Farner wrote:
> Does anybody have an issue with me combining the 'master' components in our
> vagrant configuration to one machine? Curren
+1, good call
-Jake
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bill Farner wrote:
> Does anybody have an issue with me combining the 'master' components in our
> vagrant configuration to one machine? Currently we have three machines:
> zookeeper, scheduler, master. It should be straightforward to comb
Go for it! Reducing the number of Vagrant VMs will have a noticeable impact
for those of us who don't have access to an existing Aurora cluster.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> +1. Having that many VMs to boot up every time makes me looking for other
> alternatives.
+1. Having that many VMs to boot up every time makes me looking for other
alternatives.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Bill Farner wrote:
> Does anybody have an issue with me combining the 'master' components in our
> vagrant configuration to one machine? Currently we have three machines:
> z
Does anybody have an issue with me combining the 'master' components in our
vagrant configuration to one machine? Currently we have three machines:
zookeeper, scheduler, master. It should be straightforward to combine
these into a single machine, at which point 'vagrant up' is much faster and
can
10 matches
Mail list logo
