Once again..
you missing the point... starting a server with "start server
--name=server1".... without a locator or cache.xml or jmx-manager....
you have created a useless server which you cannot interact with.... We
need to avoid that...
All the other discussions of how we can start an embedded locator or add
extra properties to the starting of the server... is just noise...
The problem is... we allow for the creation of a server that cannot be
accessed other than through a client pool... Which as a matter of fact
cannot do anything with the server, OTHER than confirming it could
connect to the server....
On 4/5/17 13:10, Anilkumar Gingade wrote:
One could create data model using cache.xml or embedded
application/api...The server/node could be used as front-end cache for
database to handle peek loads (or streamed data)....Client application can
connect to the server and register interest, execute queries, function....
-Anil.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
@Anil,
I agree... quick start to evaluate the product... "start server
--name=server1" is the simplest way to start a server... BUT there are no
regions or anything ... So we really only have a GemFire process that does
not allow you to do anything with it... except connect to it from a client
and even the client cannot do anything with the server, because it has not
admin capability.
--Udo
On 4/5/17 10:53, Anilkumar Gingade wrote:
But does a use case for a server with no locator exist? What about ease
of development?
I could see that it would be easier to start just a single server
process instead of two (locator and server).
Agree with Darrel, for someone who is evaluating the product, it helps to
build quick application and play around, without getting too much into the
cluster setup. Also, it is needed/helpful for use cases where its used as
embedded caching.
-Anil.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
I like the idea of servers failing to start if no locator exists.
But does a use case for a server with no locator exist? What about ease
of
development?
I could see that it would be easier to start just a single server process
instead of two (locator and server). But for this use case couldn't the
developer just configure a colocated locator in the same server process?
This would have the benefit of the clients during development and
production using a locator consistently.
Is it true that the server with no locator will never have any peer
members
in its cluster?
Clients can still connect to this singleton server by being configured
with
the server host and port instead of the locator.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote:
Without connecting to the server, I think you can still stop it by
specifying --pid or --dir in "stop server" command.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
Hey there,
Current Geode allows a user to start a server without being linked to a
Locator. Which in itself is not incorrect, but once started there is no
way
to connect to that server to manage it.
I know that we have taken an opinionated view that member discovery can
only now happen through a locator and that multicast is an option
anymore.
Can we take the same opinionated view where we either state that unless
your server is connecting to a locator, it cannot be started OR we fix
the
default behavior where we can start a server but cannot connect to it,
and
have to resort to "kill -9" commands to kill the server.
--Udo
--
Cheers
Jinmei
