Hi there Aravind,
I have a singular problem with this approach.
If a some members are designated to do more work, and don't have time to
respond to the cluster that they are alive using the current member
timeout, then they are not available to accept data. Which means they
are not effective members of the cluster and we cannot count on them to
host data or replicates.
This setting is there to safe guard the cluster against non-responsive
members that cause the whole cluster to be unhealthy if left unchecked
for too long. This can lead to potential data loss....
If you feel that the member timeout is too short for some members, why
don't you increase the current member timeout?
My opinion is a -1 for changing the current behavior.
--Udo
On 9/1/17 03:46, Aravind Musigumpula wrote:
Hi Brian,
This will help if the user has some member doing a heavy duty when compared to
others, in this case we need to give such member some extra time to that member.
Thanks,
Aravind Musigumpula
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Baynes [mailto:bbay...@pivotal.io]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 4:39 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: DISCUSS : Monitor the neighbour JVM using neihbour's
member-timeout (GEODE-3411)
Hi, Aravind.
Can you help me understand why this might be a useful feature for Geode? I see
that your needs require it, but why would users in general want to allow longer
timeouts for some members? This is a significant change with
backward-compatibility implications, so would be good for the community to
understand the potential benefit.
Thanks!
Brian
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Aravind Musigumpula <
aravind.musigump...@amdocs.com> wrote:
Hi Team,
We have a requirement to configure different member timeout for
different members as we need some members to survive in the view for
longer time than the other the members before being kicked out of the
view in case they aren't responding.
1. Now with the current monitoring system it is not possible to
determine when the member will be kicked out of the view if we
configure different member-timeout's for some required members.
2. Because if a member is not responding to any heartbeat requests,
the member who is monitoring the non-responding member will initiate
check member request.
3. In this check member request monitoring member pings the
non-responding member and waits for member-timeout of monitoring
member for a response.
4. If still there is no response, it will initiate a final suspect
request to coordinator where the coordinator does the final check
waiting for coordinators member-timeout.
5. If coordinator did not get any response, it will remove the
non-responding member from the view and publishes it.
6. So, Here the time period for removing a member depends on its
monitoring member's and coordinator's timeout. But the monitoring
member depends on the view but it may change from time to time.
So, now when a monitoring-member doing the check on a member, if we
wait for the non-responding member's timeout instead of the monitoring
member-timeout, then the time when the non-responding member will be
removed from the view depends on its own member-timeout and the
coordinators member-timeout.
Hence we can configure different member-timeout for the required members.
I created a pull request based on the above scenario:
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/717
Is the above approach correct? Do we have any concerns around this area?
Please give your insights on this issue.
Thanks,
Aravind Musigumpula
This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer <
https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer>
This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer
<https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer>
