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 <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Chugunov <sergey.chugu...@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 <dsetrak...@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.chugu...@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 < > > > dsetrak...@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.chugu...@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 < > > nickpord...@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.chugu...@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 < > > > > > > > dsetrak...@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.chugu...@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 < > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@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.chugu...@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 < > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@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 < > > > > > > > > > > > > admitr...@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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
