Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8965A200D0C for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:06:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 87F4E1609E2; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:06:43 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id C8B231609D8 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:06:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 56255 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2017 17:06:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@ignite.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@ignite.apache.org Received: (qmail 56245 invoked by uid 99); 20 Sep 2017 17:06:36 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:06:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 74D74D30F5 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:06:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.918 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.918 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[SPF_FAIL=0.919, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nRTACMvw-cGV for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from n6.nabble.com (n6.nabble.com [162.255.23.37]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 430905F6C0 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from n6.nabble.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n6.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D626F1D08037 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:06:33 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:06:33 -0700 (MST) From: JohnHeinreich <8oe35d+chys54sr2xqu4@guerrillamail.com> To: user@ignite.apache.org Message-ID: <1505927193874-0.post@n6.nabble.com> Subject: Client Mode and client to client communication MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable archived-at: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:06:43 -0000 Hi All, We currently have an application which uses Ignite and many of its features including, but not limited to, execution services, distributed map, and map queries. Ignite is integrated into our application as a client and we deplo= y standalone Ignite servers. We recently starting looking at the Pivotal Cloud Foundry model and how we might be able to deploy our application in that environment. In PCF, containers do not have direct access to one another. Packets are wrapped and routed via a Silk VXLAN component (more information here: https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/cf-networking-release/blob/develo= p/docs/arch.md). In a test to use PCF, we attempted to deploy our Ignite servers in BOSH (where it is essentially a VM with a public IP). Our client nodes can communicate with the server nodes in this model but we ran into some other errors. We saw the error: =E2=80=9Corg.apache.ignite.IgniteCheckedException: Failed= to send message (node may have left the grid or TCP connection cannot be establishe= d due to firewall issues)=E2=80=9D. This issue arises from our use of the ExecutorService and we believe it=E2=80=99s caused by the lack of allowed communication between clients (since clients cannot communicate directly with one another because the containers do not have access to each other).= =20 A few questions: 1.=09Is there a reason why clients communicate to other clients directly an= d not through the servers? 2.=09Is there a setting we can change in Ignite to facilitate client to cli= ent communication through the servers? Essentially route the requests through the servers for processing instead of direct communication? 3.=09What other client to client communication is built into Ignite? Is the= re other client to client functionality provided by Ignite that would break even if we weren=E2=80=99t using the executor? 4.=09Other limitations of deploying an application using Ignite in PCF? We found this post: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40372570/running-apache-ignite-cluster-= on-pivotal-cloud-foundry-environment=20 Thanks -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/