ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal
Date Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:35:13 GMT
How about this:


> *interface ClusterActivator {*
> *    boolean activate(Collection<IgniteNode> nodes);**}*


Out of the box, we can provide this implementation of the activation filter:


>
> *ClusterInitialActiveSet implements ClusterActivator { *
> *    InigeInitialActiveSet(String... addresses);**}*


Then user configuration can look as follows:

*IgniteConfiguration.setActivationFilter(new
> ClusterInitialActiveSet("1.2.3.4", "4.3.2.1", etc));*


Thoughts?

D.

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sergey Chugunov <sergey.chugunov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> The idea is interesting however I cannot come up with a clear use case
> which can be widely adopted.
> I would give users a simple API at first to cover 80% of their needs and
> then collect some feedback and start thinking about adding new
> functionality.
>
> Makes sense?
>
> Sergey.
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hm... Can we also ask user to optionally provide a predicate which will
> > receive a collection of nodes started so far and return true if the
> > activation should happen? Will it be useful?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > sergey.chugunov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Nick,
> > >
> > > As I summed up in this thread above, calling setter for initial
> > activation
> > > nodes is not the only option:
> > >
> > >    1. user starts up new cluster of desired number of nodes and
> activates
> > >    it using existing API.
> > >    BLT is created with all nodes presented in the cluster at the moment
> > of
> > >    activation, no API is needed;
> > >
> > >    2. user prepares BLT using web-console or visor CMD tools and sets
> it
> > to
> > >    the cluster. New API setter is needed:
> > >    Ignite.activation().setInitialActivationNodes(Collection<
> ClusterNode>
> > >    nodes);
> > >
> > >    3. user provides via static configuration a list of nodes that are
> > >    expected to be in the cluster.
> > >    User starts nodes one by one; when all preconfigured nodes are
> started
> > >    cluster is activated and BLT is created.
> > >    As list of nodes may be huge it is provided via separate file to
> avoid
> > >    flooding main configuration.
> > >
> > > So the option you proposed is already in the list.
> > >
> > > As for idea of activating cluster based only on number of nodes may be
> > > risky.
> > > E.g. if user starts up with data stored on disk and unexpected node
> joins
> > > the topology.
> > > Cluster will get activated with N-1 nodes where all the data is
> presented
> > > and one node completely empty. Data loss may happen in such scenario.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sergey.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Nick Pordash <nickpordash@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > How is a user expected to produce a collection of ClusterNode prior
> to
> > > all
> > > > of the expected nodes joining? Users don't create instances of this,
> so
> > > as
> > > > far as I can tell it would have to be retrieved from IgniteCluster.
> > > > However, would doing that and calling the proposed method be really
> any
> > > > different than calling Ignite.activate and using the current set of
> > > server
> > > > nodes as that collection?
> > > >
> > > > From a user's perspective is it really necessary that specific nodes
> > need
> > > > to be identified vs saying that they expect N server nodes to be in
> the
> > > > cluster for auto activation?
> > > >
> > > > -Nick
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 1:23 AM Sergey Chugunov <
> > sergey.chugunov@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I see your point and I think you're right.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can give end-user a simple setter like
> > > > > Ignite::activation::setInitialActivationNodes(
> > Collection<ClusterNode>
> > > > > nodes) to provide collection of nodes that grid must reach to
> > activate
> > > > > automatically.
> > > > >
> > > > > And then using the collection we'll create BaselineTopology
> > abstraction
> > > > > internally.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a result user won't be exposed to our internal abstractions and
> > will
> > > > > work with intuitive concept of collection of nodes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Sergey.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sergey, the interface you are suggesting is internal, not
> external.
> > > Why
> > > > > > should user ever see it or care about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > > > > sergey.chugunov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was my misunderstanding, I believe that setter is not
enough
> > and
> > > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > a full-fledged entity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We should also be able to check if BLTs are compatible.
> Interface
> > > > looks
> > > > > > > like this and use case for this functionality is described
> below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > interface BaselineTopology {
> > > > > > >    Collection<ClusterNode> nodes();
> > > > > > >    boolean isCompatibleWith(BaselineTopology blt);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's consider the following scenario:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    1. We have a grid with N nodes: it is up, active and
has
> data
> > in
> > > > it.
> > > > > > ->
> > > > > > >    BLT #1 created.
> > > > > > >    2. We shutdown the grid. Then divide it into two parts:
> > > Part1_grid
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >    Part2_grid.
> > > > > > >    3. We start and activate Part1_grid . Topology has changed
> ->
> > > > BLT#2
> > > > > > >    created.
> > > > > > >    After that we shutdown that Part1_grid.
> > > > > > >    4. We start and activate Part2_grid. Topology also has
> changed
> > > ->
> > > > > > BLT#3
> > > > > > >    created.
> > > > > > >    5. Then we start Part1_grid and it's nodes try to join
> > > Part2_grid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If join is successful we have an undefined state of the
> resulting
> > > > grid:
> > > > > > > values for the same key may (and will) differ between grid
> parts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So to prevent this we should keep nodes with BLT#2 from
joining
> > the
> > > > > grid
> > > > > > > with BLT#3. And we should fail nodes with an error message.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Sergey.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sergey, I am still confused. What is the BaselineTopology
> > > interface
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > example? I thought that you agreed with me that we
simply
> need
> > a
> > > > > setter
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > activation nodes, no?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > > > > > > sergey.chugunov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I understand you use the term "minimalActivationNodes"
> as
> > a
> > > > > > synonym
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > BaselineTopology concept.
> > > > > > > > > In that case I agree with you that we can replace
both
> > > > "establish*"
> > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > with a simple setter method (see below in summary).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Summing up the whole discussion I see the functionality
as
> > > > > following:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > New concept BaselineTopology is introduced. The
main
> features
> > > it
> > > > > > > enables
> > > > > > > > > are:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    1. automatic activation of cluster;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    2. easy management of cluster topology changes
(planned
> > > nodes
> > > > > > > > >    maintenance, adding new nodes etc);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    3. eliminating of rebalancing traffic on short-term
node
> > > > > failures.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Use cases to create BLT:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    1. user starts up new cluster of desired number
of nodes
> > and
> > > > > > > activates
> > > > > > > > >    it using existing API. BLT is created with
all nodes
> > > presented
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >    cluster at the moment of activation, no API
is needed;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    2. user prepares BLT using web-console or
visor CMD
> tools
> > > and
> > > > > sets
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >    the cluster. New API setter is needed:
> > > > > > > > >    Ignite.activation().setBaselin
> eTopology(BaselineTopology
> > > > blt);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    3. user provides via static configuration
a list of
> nodes
> > > that
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >    expected to be in the cluster.
> > > > > > > > >    User starts nodes one by one; when all preconfigured
> nodes
> > > are
> > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > >    cluster is activated and BLT is created.
> > > > > > > > >    As list of nodes may be huge it is provided
via separate
> > > file
> > > > to
> > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > >    flooding main configuration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters, does this description match with your
> understanding
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > functionality? If it does I'll create a set of
tickets and
> > > start
> > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > implementation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Sergey.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
> > > > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I still do not see why anyone would explicitly
call
> these 2
> > > > > > methods:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *Ignite::activation::establishBaselineTopology();*
> > > > > > > > > > *Ignite::activation::establishBaselineTopology(
> > > > BaselineTopology
> > > > > > > > > bltTop);*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For example, if a web console, or some other
admin
> process,
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > automatically set currently started nodes
as the baseline
> > > > > topology,
> > > > > > > > > > shouldn't they just call a setter for
> > minimalActivationNodes?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Alexey
Dmitriev <
> > > > > > > > > admitriev@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > API is proposed in the head of the
thread by Sergey,
> as I
> > > > > > > understood:
> > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > API for BaselineTopology manipulation
may look like
> this:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *Ignite::activation::establishBaselineTopology();*
> > > > > > > > > > > *Ignite::activation::establishBaselineTopology(
> > > > BaselineTopology
> > > > > > > > > > bltTop);*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Both methods will establish BT and
activate cluster
> once
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > established.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The first one allows user to establish
BT using current
> > > > > topology.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > changes happen to the topology during
establishing
> > process,
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > notified and allowed to proceed or
abort the procedure.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Second method allows to use some
> monitoring'n'management
> > > > tools
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > WebConsole where user can prepare a
list of nodes,
> using
> > > them
> > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > BT
> > > > > > > > > > > and send to the cluster a command to
finally establish
> > it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From high level BaselineTopology entity
contains only
> > > > > collection
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > nodes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *BaselineTopology {*
> > > > > > > > > > > *  Collection<TopologyNode> nodes;*
> > > > > > > > > > > *}*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *TopologyNode* here contains information
about node -
> its
> > > > > > > consistent
> > > > > > > > id
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > set of user attributes used to calculate
affinity
> > function.
> > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-
> > > > > > > > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> > com/Cluster-auto-activation-
> > > > > > > > > > > design-proposal-tp20295p21066.html
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers
mailing list
> > archive
> > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > Nabble.com.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message