Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[MRG] add "sticky builds" functionality #949
[MRG] add "sticky builds" functionality #949
Changes from all commits
4e2ac04
d95d8d4
33be855
b58a84d
7a27628
85ee797
b28f5e3
83310fc
e1567d1
34c9eee
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An idea for how to test that keys move when a new bucket becomes available and that the pattern of movement is right. I think this is how it should be but not sure. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Excellent!
Since we actually hash "nodes-key", this test doesn't need to be run multiple times, but if we would hash node separately from key and as consistent hashing was described to do as compared to our rendezvous hashing, then we could by fluke have two node hashes that are spaced luckily allow for the new node to to catch 1/3 of the stuff.
But hmmm, could you position nodes like pointers on a clock to initially have a fair share and then also after have a fair share?
Thats a clean test as well to have I think, to check that we have a 1/2 distribution initially and then get a 1/3 distribution after, combined with the previous test about perfectly stable we capture all kinds of logic. You are already doing this to some degree but it is captures mostly by the
abs(from_b1 - from_b2) < 10
statement.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The scale of the about right is different between the from_bucket and start_in difference, on average, the random walk distance if you flip a +1 or -1 over and over, is
sqrt(N)
.For the from_bucket case it is
sqrt(~1000) == ~32
and for the start_in case it issqrt(3000) == ~55
.