Hi Gavin, Here is the mail that describes the solution. http://apache.markmail.org/message/alhlibbjmm75gog3
I do see that this was not supported in some 0.6.x, Jason any idea when we added the partition constraint support. Also, if you need upgrade to latest 0.6.x, you need the to re-deploy only the controller. thanks, Kishore G On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:41 PM, kishore g <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gavin, > > That should do the trick. What Vlad said is right. There was an email > thread that explained this in detail. Let me see if I can find that. > > thanks, > Kishore G > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Gavin Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can I resolve this by state transition priority and constraint? >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Gavin Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > +dev and commits >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Gavin Li <[email protected]> >> > Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:24 AM >> > Subject: question about state transition >> > To: [email protected], [email protected] >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > We have each server handle some partitions, and we use Master Slave >> model. >> > >> > We need to do some work when transit from offline to slave, sometimes it >> > takes long time. So when the server ranked higher in ideal state is up >> and >> > doing the work during the transition of offline to slave, the other >> server >> > is changed to slave from master. >> > >> > This is causing some period of time that there's no master at all which >> is >> > problematic. Is it possible to bring the other server down when the >> higher >> > rank server is transiting from slave to master instead of when >> transition >> > from offline to slave? >> > >> > THanks, >> > Gavin Li >> > >> > >> > >
