swaminathanmanish commented on PR #12459: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/12459#issuecomment-2014128786
> > To get more clarity - > > @Jackie-Jiang , @snleee, @tibrewalpratik17 - Why should minionInstanceTag be at taskTypeConfigsMap instead of being a table level config ? Do we want isolation at the table level or task level? > > @swaminathanmanish +1 on your point. I think that this feature naturally fits better to the tenant config? > > Yes agreed to have a `minionTenant` concept as a table level config. Based on a discussion here - [#11240 (comment)](https://github.com/apache/pinot/issues/11240#issuecomment-1662819235) we would also like to give the flexibility to override it as task-level too just in case there are lot of tasks for a table and we want to isolate those too or group similar tasks of different tables in dedicated minion-nodes (may be different SKUs based on tasks). I raised this patch to quickly give the option of isolating tasks first. Post this, can work on a patch to introduce `minionTenant` concept in Pinot. Anyways, since this task-level config will have higher precedence over table's tenant config, this change will be backward compatible even then. What do you all think about this? > > Also, will address comments shortly and update the patch. Thanks a lot @tibrewalpratik17 . Would you be able to create a github issue to track this effort? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@pinot.apache.org
