Great!
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
> I tested AWS clustering in the last couple of days, and it is working
> without any code changes. Just need to provide the AWS connection
> parameters etc. in the clustering section. However, it won't work with ELB
> because we have t
I tested AWS clustering in the last couple of days, and it is working
without any code changes. Just need to provide the AWS connection
parameters etc. in the clustering section. However, it won't work with ELB
because we have to change the ELB component to read the proper AWS security
group name f
Yes, this is a well-known issue in Hazelcast. If all WK members fail, the
entire cluster has to be restarted. That is why we recommend two WK
members, at minimum. We raised this with the Hazelcast folks, but no
guarantees on the timelines at which this would be addressed.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at
Hi
As i continued Nirmal's test case with multiple JVMs, identified the below
observations:
In the test, i had two members and one static member. I had started the
static member first and then started other two members. The members joined
to the cluster by talking to the static member. Then i shu
I don't understand how that config will work when you have your instances
running on multiple JVMs on multiple machines since the port is not
provided.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Nirmal Fernando wrote:
> Here it is;
>
>
> [3]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
>xsi
I'd certainly need to change the hazelcast.xml accordingly when I run this
on multiple JVMs. Current configuration is only for single JVM.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
> I don't understand how that config will work when you have your instances
> running on multiple JVMs o
Here it is;
[3]
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.hazelcast.com/schema/config
http://www.hazelcast.com/schema/config/hazelcast-config-3.2.xsd";
xmlns="http://www.hazelcast.com/schema/config";>
Can you share the hazelcast.xml?
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Nirmal Fernando wrote:
> Thanks Azeez. Yes, that would be my next step.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
>
>> Looks ok. Rather than creating multiple Hz instances within the same JVM,
>> you should be cre
Looks ok. Rather than creating multiple Hz instances within the same JVM,
you should be creating a single Hz instance per JVM to replicate our
clustering implementation more closely.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Nirmal Fernando wrote:
> Hi Azeez,
>
> I ran the following test case and results
Thanks Azeez. Yes, that would be my next step.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
> Looks ok. Rather than creating multiple Hz instances within the same JVM,
> you should be creating a single Hz instance per JVM to replicate our
> clustering implementation more closely.
>
>
> O
Hi Azeez,
I ran the following test case and results showed that members whose static
initial members are shutdown, can still see new members. Let me know if you
see any issue in this test case.
*TEST*
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.setProperty("hazelcast.config",
Dynamic discovery happens after the static nodes are added, and the static
nodes being available is crucial for the cluster to work.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Nirmal Fernando wrote:
> Hi Azeez,
>
> Thanks for the replies. Sorry, if I misunderstood the Hazelcast
> TcpIpJoiner, but I did f
Hi Azeez,
Thanks for the replies. Sorry, if I misunderstood the Hazelcast
TcpIpJoiner, but I did following test on Hazelcast tcp/ip [1] and it seems
each node discovers every other dynamically [2]. My Hazelcast.xml file is
[3]. Does my test case incorrect? Appreciate your thoughts.
[1]
public st
Anyway, there is a catch here. The membership scheme uses TCP/IP
underneath, and adds the members it sees as static members. But when all
the members each node added fails, that node has to be restarted. So, when
the cluster if formed, node 1 will not have any WK members; node 2 will
have 1 WK memb
Yes, in terms on Carbon clustering, you have to implement a
MembershipScheme. WKA & Multicast are two membership schemes we already
have. We do have an AWS membership scheme class, but that is not fully
implemented or tested.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Nirmal Fernando wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
Hi All,
In a Cloud environment, it's not ideal to mark one or more WKA members
since it brings lot of challenges such as;
1. Keeping WKA members up and running always
2. If they got destroyed spin up replacement WKA members and respawn the
whole cluster.
etc.
These could possibly lead to lot of
16 matches
Mail list logo
