container: Support initial placement policy#381
Conversation
cthulhu-rider
force-pushed
the
initial-placement
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e735800 to
a0eac9f
Compare
Closes #352. Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
cthulhu-rider
force-pushed
the
initial-placement
branch
from
a0eac9f to
9e51142
Compare
| // | ||
| // `replica_limits` allows to override `Replica.count` and EC partitions. If | ||
| // set, `replica_limits` must have a length equal to the sum of `replicas` | ||
| // (`RN`) and `ec_rules` length. Each of first `RN` elements of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
alias to use briefly further
| // replica limit (`replica_limits` or main ones). | ||
| // | ||
| // `prefer_local` allows to tell server to try to store `MaxReplicas` | ||
| // replicas in locations that include this server. `prefer_local` must be set |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this line mean it is impossible to use prefer_local with non-empty replica_limits? the issue provides an example that allows it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no, there is no such restriction in this statement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hm, that is how i understood it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
well, this paragraph does not contain replica_limits at all. So i did not catch ur thought
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i read it as prefer_local can be used with max_replicas only, so the remaining fields (replica_limits only) should not be used with prefer_local. that would conflict with the example from the issue. if it is not -- no problem
3 participants
No description provided.