ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Data vanished from cluster after INACTIVE/ACTIVE switch
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:45:27 GMT
That's the best solution for this scenario. Should we readjust the already
created ticket [1] suggesting to implement the changes of Alex Scherbakov
instead?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12614

-
Denis


On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:54 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> For a long time we have a flag [1]
>
> It does almost what we want here.
>
> I suggest to make this behavior default and rework it to keep data in
> memory as well (we already have special "recovery" mode for caches).
>
> [1]
> org.apache.ignite.IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_REUSE_MEMORY_ON_DEACTIVATE
>
>
>
> пн, 3 февр. 2020 г. в 18:47, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > I do not mind making this change if we explicitly and clearly define what
> > 'new inactive state' means. What should happen if a partition is lost in
> > inactive state? What if such node joins back the cluster after? Etc.
> >
> > пт, 31 янв. 2020 г. в 20:57, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Back up Ivan's opinion here. Initially, the activation/deactivation was
> > > created for the baseline topology designed for cases with native
> > > persistence. My thinking was that the mechanism itended to prevent data
> > > inconsistencies while nodes with data on the disk will be in the
> process
> > of
> > > joining the cluster.
> > >
> > > Artem, could you please update the docs bringing this to the attention
> of
> > > the user community?
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12615
> > >
> > > AG, what if we don't purge data from memory at least for the caches not
> > > backed by the native persistence? Is this a big deal? We can certainly
> > put
> > > this off by my guts feel we'll return to this question sooner or later.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:17 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > For me it looks like some coincidence effect. I understand that we
> get
> > > > such behavior because deactivation works the same way as for
> > > > persistent caches. Was cluster activation/deactivation designed and
> > > > described for in-memory caches? Current behavior sounds for me a as
> > > > big risk. I expect a lot of upset users unexpectedly purged all their
> > > > data.
> > > >
> > > > пт, 31 янв. 2020 г. в 00:00, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > Because originally the sole purpose of deactivation was resource
> > > > > deallocation.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 30 янв. 2020 г. в 22:13, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Such a revelation for me that data is purged from RAM if someone
> > > > > > deactivates the cluster. Alex, do you remember why we decided
to
> > > > implement
> > > > > > it this way initially?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:09 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree on CLI and JMX because those interfaces can be
used by
> a
> > > > system
> > > > > > > administrator and can be invoked by mistake.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for the Java API, personally, I find it strange to add
> 'force'
> > > or
> > > > > > > 'confirm' flags to it because it is very unlikely that
such an
> > > > invocation
> > > > > > > is done by mistake. Such mistakes are caught during the
testing
> > > > phase and
> > > > > > > developers will end up hard-coding 'true' as a flag anyways.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Alexei Scherbakov
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message