Hi, localAddress is a property of TcpDIscoverySpi configuration and localHost 
is the property of IgniteConfiguration. 

Could you please show the whole ignite-config.xml with localHost 
property defined? 

--
Best regards, 
Aleksandr

On 2022/12/08 15:44:41 [email protected] wrote:
> Hi, I t seems the property "localHost" is not valid. Is it supposed to be the 
> same as "localAddress" ? 
> https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/clustering/network-configuration   I 
> have read the docs about BasicAddressResolver but none of my attemps worked. 
> It has been mentioned as a solution here 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30041.html but 
> unfortunately no example is provided. So I have tried alternatively :  
>  but no result so far, I am still investigating.   Regards 
> 
> Le 07-Dec-2022 15:18:45 +0100, [email protected] a crit: 
>  Here is a javadoc for BasicAddressResolver that has an example    
> https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/configuration/BasicAddressResolver.html
>      Also, you could setup config file to have the property localHost set to 
> your host IP for each container.  
> 
>  10.17.10.55      I hope it will work for you.   -- Best regards,  Aleksandr 
> 
> On 2022/12/07 12:49:27 [email protected] wrote:
> > Hello again,  This is my main problem : I can't use "network" mode because 
> > we already use user namespaces on these machines. And it's not compatible.  
> > Some posts here and there suggested BasicAddressResolver could be solution, 
> > but no example was provided and I am not really sure about what is offers 
> > and what it doesn't.  So I gave a try, but it seems it is not a workaround. 
> >  If there is no way to cluster it with NAT involved, I will have to find 
> > another database.  Regards
> > 
> > Le 07-Dec-2022 13:38:50 +0100, [email protected] a crit: 
> >  Thank you for the valuable information. "with forced IP 192.168.1.99" -- I 
> > think this is the reason.  Ignite node does not know that its real IP is 
> > 10.17.10.55. If it is possible to use host docker network I believe it 
> > should help. https://docs.docker.com/network/host/  So, try to run both 
> > docker containers with --network host.  --  Best regards, Aleksandr  
> > 
> > On 2022/12/07 10:35:13 [email protected] wrote:
> > > Hi,  10.17.10.55 and 10.17.10.56 are the addresses of the VMs hosting the 
> > > containers.
> > >  My Ignite containers are based on the official image.  So when I am 
> > > logged (with "docker exec") into the one hosted on 10.17.10.55, with 
> > > forced IP 192.168.1.99 (as it is not possible to force an address withing 
> > > the "default" range) :  bash-5.1# hostname
> > > aac1698dd409  bash-5.1# ip a
> > > 1: lo:  mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN qlen 1000
> > > link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
> > > inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
> > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
> > > 11982: eth0@if11983:  mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP 
> > > link/ether 02:42:c0:a8:01:63 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> > > inet 192.168.1.99/16 brd 192.168.255.255 scope global eth0
> > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
> > >  bash-5.1# ping 10.17.10.56
> > > PING 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56): 56 data bytes
> > > 64 bytes from 10.17.10.56: seq=0 ttl=63 time=0.413 ms
> > > 64 bytes from 10.17.10.56: seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.352 ms
> > >  bash-5.1# echo "10800 11211 47100 47500" | xargs -n 1 nc -vz 10.17.10.56 
> > > 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56:10800) open
> > > 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56:11211) open
> > > 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56:47100) open
> > > 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56:47500) open  It seems ports exposed by the 
> > > container hosted by the other VM can be reached.  And of course, form the 
> > > host itself :  echo "10800 11211 47100 47500" | xargs -n 1 nc -vz 
> > > 10.17.10.56 
> > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 10800 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 11211 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 47100 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 47500 port [tcp/*] succeeded!  echo "10800 
> > > 11211 47100 47500" | xargs -n 1 nc -vz 10.17.10.55 
> > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 10800 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 11211 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 47100 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 47500 port [tcp/*] succeeded!  Without adding 
> > > the forced IP and the BasicAddressResolver I had the same results.  
> > > Regards  
> > > 
> > > Le 07-Dec-2022 11:03:55 +0100, [email protected] a crit: 
> > > Thanks for the clarification.  It seems like your containers could not 
> > > see each other via network. Could you please perform "cross check" out of 
> > > the container? Say, you enter to  the container with ip 10.17.10.55 and 
> > > try to perform check to 10.17.10.56.  You can use 'docker exec -it  bash' 
> > > to enter to the container.  If there is no connection between containers, 
> > > try to configure the docker network for therm. More info here  
> > > https://docs.docker.com/network/network-tutorial-standalone/  --  Best 
> > > regards,  Aleksandr
> > > 
> > > On 2022/12/06 08:27:20 [email protected] wrote:
> > > > Hi, Here is the whole configuration file with my latest experiements :  
> > > > 
> > > > 10.17.10.55
> > > > 10.17.10.56
> > > > 
> > > >  10.17.10.55 and 56 are the external addresses of the the hosts.  Of 
> > > > course each node as a different interfal IP address and ConsistendId.  
> > > > Regards
> > > > 
> > > > Le 05-Dec-2022 12:59:39 +0100, [email protected] a crit: 
> > > > Hi, could you please share the TCP/IP Discovery configuration?  If you 
> > > > have not configured it please check this  
> > > > https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/clustering/tcp-ip-discovery  --  
> > > > Best regards,  Aleksandr
> > > > 
> > > > On 2022/11/25 11:27:19 [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > Hi,  I am trying to setup a two nodes replicated cluster, in an 
> > > > > active/passive way.  On each node, a Java webapp will be accessing 
> > > > > the local database instance using JDBC.  The app itself is stateless, 
> > > > > but I need synced datas from the database.  Ignite seems to be a nice 
> > > > > choice, as I don't need advanced SQL features but replication and 
> > > > > simplicity.  So I am running an Ignite container on two differents 
> > > > > hosts (10.17.10.55 and 10.17.10.56), using : docker run -v 
> > > > > "/tmp/ignite.xml:/opt/ignite/apache-ignite/config/default-config.xml" 
> > > > > -p "10800:10800" -p "11211:11211" -p "47100:47100" -p "47500:47500" 
> > > > > -p "49112:49112" apacheignite/ignite:latest  And here is the content 
> > > > > of the file "ignite.xml" (of course, "consistentId" value is 
> > > > > different for each host, the rest is the same).  
> > > > > 
> > > > > 10.17.10.55
> > > > > 10.17.10.56
> > > > > 
> > > > >  As far as I can see, when the containers are up, ports are exposed 
> > > > > and firewall does not block communications (I have runned these two 
> > > > > commands on both hosts, in order to "cross check"):  echo "10800 
> > > > > 11211 47100 47500" | xargs nc -vz 10.17.10.55
> > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 10800 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 11211 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 47100 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 47500 port [tcp/*] succeeded!  echo "10800 
> > > > > 11211 47100 47500" | xargs nc -vz 10.17.10.56
> > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 10800 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 11211 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 47100 port [tcp/*] succeeded!
> > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 47500 port [tcp/*] succeeded!  But the two 
> > > > > Ignite instances don't seem to communicate, as I get an error message 
> > > > > like :  Failed to connect to any address from IP finder (make sure IP 
> > > > > finder addresses are correct and firewalls are disabled on all host 
> > > > > machines): [/10.17.10.55:47500, /10.17.10.56:47500]  Did I miss 
> > > > > something ? A quick and dirty try with a local docker-compose and a 
> > > > > config file which is the base of the one I tried here was running 
> > > > > flawlessly.  Regards  
> > > > > 
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > FreeMail powered by mail.fr
> > > > >  
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >  FreeMail powered by mail.fr 
> > > > 
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > FreeMail powered by mail.fr
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > FreeMail powered by mail.fr
> > >  
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > FreeMail powered by mail.fr
> >  
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FreeMail powered by mail.fr
> 

Reply via email to