That makes sense. That's what I was kind of worried about (launching soon). Hope someone else posts!
ср, 8 февр. 2017 г. в 16:54, Elias Levy <fearsome.lucid...@gmail.com>: > It is certainly possible, but when you got dozens of workers, that would > take a very long time, specially if you got a lot of state, as partitions > get reassigned and state moved about. In fact, it is likely to fail at > some point, as local state that can be stored in a multitude of nodes may > not be able to be stored locally as the number of nodes becomes smaller. > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Dmitry Minkovsky <dminkov...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Can you take them down sequentially? Like, say, with a Kubernetes > > StatefulSet > > < > https://kubernetes.io/docs/tutorials/stateful-application/basic-stateful- > > set/#ordered-pod-termination> > > . > > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Elias Levy <fearsome.lucid...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > What are folks doing to cleanly shutdown a Streams job comprised of > > > multiple workers? > > > > > > Right now I am doing sys.addShutdownHook(streams.close()) but that is > > not > > > working well to shutdown a fleet of workers. When I signal the fleet > to > > > shutdown by sending them all a SIGTERM, some of them will shutdown, but > > > some will persist. It appears that there is a race condition between > the > > > shutdown signal and a rebalancing occurring as a result of other > workers > > > shutting down. If a worker has not started shutting down before the > > > rebalancing starts, the rebalancing will cause the worker to not > > shutdown. > > > > > > Others seeing the same thing? > > > > > >
