@buraksezer First of all, I want to say thanks for this awesome implementation! I've started to use it in one of my projects.
I did, however, have a question about the PartitionCount configuration. I haven't seen a lot of information in the literature about how this impacts the hashing and, more importantly, any strategies on how to best chose the value for any arbitrary type of query workload. What I'm trying to do is uniformly distribute queries for any given resourceID across N cluster members. I like this library because if one of the cluster members fails then the load is redistributed such that any one of the remaining members will receive <= (Load * 100 ) percent of the residual traffic.
But I don't quite yet understand how that goal relates with the PartitionCount, and if I choose a lower value such as 3, 5, or 9 then I experience issues with the library being able to distribute when I add more members. Your input/guidance would be appreciated :)
@buraksezer First of all, I want to say thanks for this awesome implementation! I've started to use it in one of my projects.
I did, however, have a question about the
PartitionCount
configuration. I haven't seen a lot of information in the literature about how this impacts the hashing and, more importantly, any strategies on how to best chose the value for any arbitrary type of query workload. What I'm trying to do is uniformly distribute queries for any givenresourceID
across N cluster members. I like this library because if one of the cluster members fails then the load is redistributed such that any one of the remaining members will receive <= (Load
* 100 ) percent of the residual traffic.But I don't quite yet understand how that goal relates with the
PartitionCount
, and if I choose a lower value such as 3, 5, or 9 then I experience issues with the library being able to distribute when I add more members. Your input/guidance would be appreciated :)