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 Mon, 06 Nov 2017 19:52:57 GMT
Got it. In that case, I do not think that BaselineNode is a correct
abstraction. How about ClusterEndpoint?

D.

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> The main point of having a BaselineNode interface is that baseline topology
> will contain nodes even when they are offline. When a node is offline, most
> of the methods on ClusterNode are meaningless, thus the new interface (for
> example, node ID). I left on the interface only methods which will reliably
> return data.
>
> Ilya,
>
> For now, we must keep the old AffinityFunction interface, but we can change
> it in the AI 3.0.
>
> --AG
>
> 2017-11-04 17:56 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>
> > Alexey, what is the point of BaselineNode interface? Why not just have
> > ClusterNode?
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > We are getting closer to the baseline topology finalization. As a first
> > > step, I would like to request a review of the baseline topology
> > management
> > > API. The changes are summarized in [1]. In my opinion, changes are
> quite
> > > simple and concise. Also, as a side note, I suggest moving cluster
> > > activation methods to the IgniteCluter facade as well because the
> facade
> > > itself looks like a good place for management API. Looks like the
> > original
> > > decision to place it on Ignite was wrong.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5850
> > >
> > > 2017-09-04 17:46 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > sergey.chugunov@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea of ClusterActivator interface.
> > > > >
> > > > > From user perspective it provides the same functionality as the
> > setter
> > > > but
> > > > > in more clear and intuitive way.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > BTW, I made a naming mistake in the original email. The setter name
> > > should
> > > > be "setClusterActivator(...).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also it gives us a good place to put all the documentation about
> the
> > > > > feature.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agree. Another advantage is that users can now provide custom logic
> for
> > > the
> > > > initial cluster activation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Any other opinions?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alexey Goncharuk, given that you provided the initial implementation
> of
> > > the
> > > > cluster activation, can you please take a look at this design and
> > provide
> > > > comments?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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