Let's consider a mass deployment: thousands of service instances of the same service template, created by many different users with their own ARIA installations (and databases). In that case, assuming we use sequential IDs, you would have the same node ID appear many times. You would have to identify it via the particular user and service instance. If you're centralizing logs, this can quickly be cumbersome. A UUID will identify it globally and avoid any confusion.
I think the default should be something that avoids such problems. For users who insist on shorter IDs, we can allow them to configure it. On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:42 PM, DeWayne Filppi <dewa...@cloudify.co> wrote: > True uuids are seductive, because of their simplicity. But they are huge, > overkill, and meaningless. Imho a structured id is superior if it can be > made to work without a global locking scheme. > > - DeWayne > > On Jul 25, 2017 12:11 PM, "Tal Liron" <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > It's not an issue of thread safety -- it could be entirely different > > processes, on different machines, accessing the same db. It can be solved > > via a SQL transaction, but I feel the whole issue can be avoided by using > > UUIDs. > > > > Using the CLI to access specific nodes is not something I see happening a > > lot outside of debugging. And when you do debug, you'll probably be > copying > > and pasting a node ID from the logs, so shorter names do not add much > ease > > of use. > > > > Again, I would be personally happiest if this was configurable (and > > personally think UUIDs should be the reasonable default). > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Maxim Orlov <ma...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > > > Technically we have no issue with implementing this via uuid or a > > > threadsafe solution for the current index implementation. > > > > > > Getting node data via the cli feels more intuitive using the index > based > > > ID, rather than the uuid based ID in my opionion. > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2017 9:49 PM, "Tal Liron" <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > > > > Our code for determining the next index is not concurrently safe (no > > atomic > > > transaction) so I can see it breaking in concurrent use cases (running > > two > > > ARIA commands at the same time). > > > > > > What is to gain here in terms of human readability? In my opinion it > adds > > > confusion because it gives a false sense of predictability. > > > > > > In my opinion the best compromise is to use base57-encoded UUIDs. These > > are > > > true UUIDs, but use a mix of upper and lowercase alphanumerics ensuring > > no > > > visually ambiguous characters. We have the code for this in > > utils/uuid.py. > > > > > > See also: https://github.com/wyattisimo/base57-ruby > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Maxim Orlov <ma...@cloudify.co> > wrote: > > > > > > > Actually the refactoring was made so the id would be more user > > readable. > > > > The index is determined according to the used indices (it's not just > a > > > > running number). If indeed this poses an issue (or if indeed a uuid > is > > > > easier to recognize, or even use in a query), let's discuss it > > further... > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > > > > > > > We used to use UUIDs but at some point this was refactored. I tend > to > > > > agree > > > > > with you. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I would prefer it to be configurable. We have code in > place > > > for > > > > > ID generation of various types: UUIDs, short UUIDs, and > sequentials. > > > All > > > > of > > > > > them would seem useful to me for various scenarios. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Vaishnavi K.R < > > > > vaishnavi....@ericsson.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With my understanding in current ARIA, the node instances are > made > > > > unique > > > > > > by prefixing the node name with the 'id of the service' (i.e. the > > > > primary > > > > > > key of the service table) as the instances are specific to the > > > service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What will be the name of the node instances if the default > > instances > > > > for > > > > > > the node template is '3' and how this will hold good during scale > > in > > > > and > > > > > > out? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could UUID be of great help in handling such cases by including > > that > > > > as a > > > > > > column in the database tables of the service and the node? > > > > > > > > > > > > This will wipe out the naming confusions and querying can be made > > > easy > > > > > > with the UUIDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your suggestion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > /Vaish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
