Thanks Anthony. Two scenarios. No HA Function member lost while executing:- It will fail once but next call to function should get successful. I mean to say that next request will not get routed to failed members. And it should return data from live members from next call as we have redundancy enabled.
With HA function member lost while executing:- It will do a retry on live members and return the data as we have redundancy enabled. No failure in this case. I hope my understanding is correct. With best regards, Ashish On Wed, Jun 3, 2020, 6:52 AM Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > Definitely set isHA to true to enable automatic retries of your function. > This assumes that the implementation is amenable to this behavior. If you > don’t set the pool retries, it will use the default. > > > https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/12/developing/function_exec/how_function_execution_works.html > > > Anthony > > > On Jun 2, 2020, at 12:05 PM, aashish choudhary < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Also just wondering do we need to have both combination for proper retry > in this case as I explained. > In client > setPoolRetryAttempts to let's say 4 > In Function > isHA to true > > With best regards, > Ashish > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020, 12:13 AM aashish choudhary < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> It returns false. So we need to add retry mechanism by making isHA true >> and do necessary changes as per documents? >> >> >> With best regards, >> Ashish >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, 11:35 PM Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What does `isHA` return? >>> >>> >>> https://geode.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/geode/cache/execute/Function.html#isHA-- >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> >>> On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:29 AM, aashish choudhary < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Very recently we got an issue wherein we got PartitionOfflineException >>> from few members and geode function returned no data. We have redundancy >>> enabled and we're hoping that it should atleast retry and return data back >>> to client. >>> Do we need to add retry mechanism for this excpetion? Or I am just >>> mixing thing and it is not possible in this case? >>> >>> With best regards, >>> Ashish >>> >>> >>> >
