Hi Dmitriy, I’m totally for the FailureProcessingPolicy addition to IgniteConfiguration.
Apart of this, may I ask you to create corresponding documentation tickets for 2.4 release and “documentation” component? Only for the improvements that are getting into the next release. Basically you can aggregate them if it helps. Feel free to assign the ticket on me right away. — Denis > On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Дмитрий Сорокин <sbt.sorokin....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, Igniters! > > We have a set of internal problems, which required graceful node shutdown, > or other reaction configured (See discussion thread > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Ignite-Enhancement-Proposal-7-Internal-problems-detection-td24460.html > ): > - IgniteOutOfMemoryException - > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6892 > - Persistence errors - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6891 > - ExchangeWorker exits with error - > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6890 > > First, I propose reconsider 3rd problem as "System worker exit while node > still running (node stopping process has not been started)", because we > have at least 5 worker classes, which running is critical for node working. > > These workers are: > - partition-exchanger (ExchangeWorker) > - disco-event-worker > - nio-acceptor > - grid-nio-worker-tcp-comm-* > - grid-timeout-worker > > Second, I propose to use FailureProcessingPolicy (already implemented in > scope of task IGNITE-6890) for reaction definition on 1st and 2nd detected > problems too. This policy can be configured similar to SegmentationPolicy > in IgniteConfiguration. > > Opinions?
