With the new implementation, will it allow two different regions with the same exact name to exist in the cluster ?
I meant like server A had a cache.xml with region “test” with different properties as to the cache.xml in server B for region “test”. And the locator had an empty cluster config. So now when servers A and B start, they will have different regions but the same name “test”. Because there is no sync up with locator’s cluster config. Pardon me if my understanding is wrong. Regards Nabarun On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:23 PM Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > My point is: we can't keep "mending" the wrong behavior, otherwise we can > not move forward. > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > So the current behavior is, when a customer starts a server with > cache.xml > > that has a region defined, and then later on issues a gfsh command > `create > > index` on that region, the command output would be something like: > > >create index ..... > > Member | Status > > ---------------------------- > > server-1 | Index successfully created. > > > > Cluster configuration for "cluster" is not updated > > Region XYZ does not exist in the cluster configuration (or something to > > this effect). > > > > The command result would tell user exactly what happened and what not > > happened. The point is, a server's own cache.xml is NOT meant to be a > > "cluster" wide configuration. If customer is in the habit of starting up > > server with cache.xml but yet still want to have consistent region/index > > defined in the cluster, export a server's config and use that to start > > another server. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Diane Hardman <dhard...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > >> I talked with Barbara and understand the long term effort to deprecate > >> cache.xml in favor of cluster config and I heartily agree. > >> I think a good step in that direction is to provide a migration tool for > >> users that reads all cache.xml files for current members and store them > in > >> cluster config, throwing exceptions and logging errors when region > >> definitions conflict (for the same region name) on different servers in > >> the > >> same cluster. > >> We might then consider removing the cache.xml files and rely on gfsh and > >> (in the future, hopefully) Java API's to keep cluster config up-to-date. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> > >> > The decision is to go with the new behavior (I believe :-)). The > region > >> > does not exist in the cluster configuration to begin with since it's > not > >> > created using gfsh, so we have no way of checking unless we make an > >> extra > >> > trip to the region to find out what kind of region it is, but again > >> > different server might have different opinion about what it is. > >> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Diane Hardman <dhard...@pivotal.io> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Since we are working on enhancing Lucene support to allow adding a > >> Lucene > >> > > index to an existing region containing data, I am very interested in > >> the > >> > > decision here. > >> > > Like Mike, I also prefer keeping the original behavior of updating > >> > cluster > >> > > config with both the region and the index if it was not there > before. > >> > > Is there something preventing you from checking cluster config for a > >> > region > >> > > of the same name but different properties and, if so, throwing an > >> > exception > >> > > (or warning) > >> > > that cluster config could not be updated due to this collision? > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Ok. Yes we do have to take the leap :) > >> > > > Let's keep thinking that way. > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Mike Stolz > >> > > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead > >> > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > >> > > > Download the GemFire book here. > >> > > > <https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services- > >> > > > with-pivotal-gemfire> > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > but this proposed change is one of the effort toward > "deprecating > >> > > > > cache.xml". I think we've got to take the leap at one point..... > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Michael Stolz < > mst...@pivotal.io > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hmmm...I think I liked the old behavior better. It was a kind > of > >> > > bridge > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > cluster config. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I still think we need to be putting much more effort into > >> > deprecating > >> > > > > > cache.xml and much less effort into fixing the (possibly) > >> hundreds > >> > of > >> > > > > bugs > >> > > > > > related to using both cache.xml and cluster configuration at > the > >> > same > >> > > > > time. > >> > > > > > If we can make cluster config complete enough, and deprecate > >> > > cache.xml, > >> > > > > > people will stop using cache.xml. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > Mike Stolz > >> > > > > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead > >> > > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > >> > > > > > Download the GemFire book here. > >> > > > > > <https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services- > >> > > > > > with-pivotal-gemfire> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Jinmei Liao < > jil...@pivotal.io > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Scenario: > >> > > > > > > a locator with cluster configuration enabled and a server > >> started > >> > > > with > >> > > > > a > >> > > > > > > cache.xml that has /regionA defined and connected to this > >> > locator. > >> > > So > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > initial state is the locator has an empty cluster > >> configuration > >> > for > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > cluster, but the server has a region defined in it's cache. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Old behavior: > >> > > > > > > when user execute "create index --region=/regionA ...." > >> command > >> > > using > >> > > > > > gfsh, > >> > > > > > > the index creation is successful on the server, and the > server > >> > > > returns > >> > > > > a > >> > > > > > > xml section that contains both <region> and <index> > elements, > >> CC > >> > is > >> > > > > > updated > >> > > > > > > with this xml, so the end result is: both region and index > >> end up > >> > > in > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > cluster configuration. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Problem with old behavior: > >> > > > > > > Not sure if the region is a cluster wide configuration. What > >> if a > >> > > > > region > >> > > > > > > with the same name, but different type exists on different > >> > servers? > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > xml > >> > > > > > > returned by different server might be different. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > New behavior: > >> > > > > > > when user execute "create index --region=/regionA ...." > >> command > >> > > using > >> > > > > > gfsh, > >> > > > > > > the index creation is successful on the server. We failed to > >> find > >> > > the > >> > > > > > > region in the existing cluster configuration, so cluster > >> > > > configuration > >> > > > > > will > >> > > > > > > NOT be updated. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I would also suggest that this would not apply to index > alone, > >> > any > >> > > > > > element > >> > > > > > > inside region would have the same behavior change if we > >> approve > >> > > this. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks! > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > Cheers > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Jinmei > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Cheers > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Jinmei > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Cheers > >> > > >> > Jinmei > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > > > Jinmei > > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Jinmei >
