[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LIVY-718?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17011485#comment-17011485
]
Saisai Shao commented on LIVY-718:
----------------------------------
Hi [~shanyu] what is the main reason that we should have "active-standby" HA?
From my understanding, looks like compared to active-active HA, active-standby
HA seems not so useful, and current fail recovery could cover most of the
scenarios.
> Support multi-active high availability in Livy
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LIVY-718
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LIVY-718
> Project: Livy
> Issue Type: Epic
> Components: RSC, Server
> Reporter: Yiheng Wang
> Priority: Major
>
> In this JIRA we want to discuss how to implement multi-active high
> availability in Livy.
> Currently, Livy only supports single node recovery. This is not sufficient in
> some production environments. In our scenario, the Livy server serves many
> notebook and JDBC services. We want to make Livy service more fault-tolerant
> and scalable.
> There're already some proposals in the community for high availability. But
> they're not so complete or just for active-standby high availability. So we
> propose a multi-active high availability design to achieve the following
> goals:
> # One or more servers will serve the client requests at the same time.
> # Sessions are allocated among different servers.
> # When one node crashes, the affected sessions will be moved to other active
> services.
> Here's our design document, please review and comment:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bD3qYZpw14_NuCcSGUOfqQ0pqvSbCQsOLFuZp26Ohjc/edit?usp=sharing
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
