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 Wed, 08 Nov 2017 07:48:18 GMT
How about BaseNode?

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> An offline node is a node that was present in a cluster, but either
> disconnected or failed and the corresponding event is fired by the
> discovery SPI. In this case, the cluster will not attempt to rebalance data
> and change affinity assignments until it is either confirmed manually via
> conf tools or programmatically via the new API that this node is unlikely
> to recover. Once confirmed, the cluster should create additional replicas.
> (Of course, we will keep the old mode when each topology change will
> trigger affinity reassignment). When a node is failed, but present in
> baseline topology, it is still taken into account for affinity calculation,
> thus preserving the partition assignment. This helps to avoid unnecessary
> rebalancing and speeds up the partition map exchange.
>
> 2017-11-08 0:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>
> > Alexey, can you explain what an offline node means, if it is not an
> > endpoint? Can it become an online node? If you could describe the
> > transition steps of how a node goes offline and online, it would help.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Why not? To me, the endpoint in the name suggests that this is
> something
> > > intended to connect to, however, the interface just denotes a node that
> > can
> > > be offline, so I think it still has to be a 'Node'.
> > >
> > > 2017-11-06 22:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > 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