Yup, it's already what we discussed together for ActiveMQ (5.x):
active/passive is the most accurate to me.
+1
Thanks for helping there !
Regards
JB
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:40 PM Étienne Hossack wrote:
>
> Given I'm still hoping to drive the PRs for AMQ-8317, and AMQ-7514 through I
> apologi
Given I'm still hoping to drive the PRs for AMQ-8317, and AMQ-7514 through I
apologize for not chiming in earlier due to busyness.
But echoing the consensus as well for posterity:
> Nouns: Primary/Backup
> Adjectives: Active/Passive
Such that for AMQ5 we'd be starting generally to use the replac
The purpose is not really a formal vote (as for a release for instance).
It's more to get consensus.
I think we have a consensus.
+1 to proceed now :)
Regards
JB
Le dim. 8 mai 2022 à 05:14, Tetreault, Lucas
a écrit :
> Here is the summary of all the votes:
> [+1,1,-1,-1000,-1,-1] Leader/Follo
Here is the summary of all the votes:
[+1,1,-1,-1000,-1,-1] Leader/Follower
[-1,+1,+1,+1,+1,+1,-1,+1,+1] Primary/Backup
[+1, +1, +1,+1] Active/Passive
[+1] Active/Standby
[+1] capitalist/worker
It seems like we have consensus on Primary/Backup and Active/Passive as per
Justin's suggestion:
Nou
My understanding was previous discuss thread was that we leant for for
Primary/Backup
What I was suggesting as it seemed it wasn’t closed out and it continues to
rumble on was a binary vote per Apache voting on that as the proposal to end
and close it out formally.
As this is multiple choice t
My 2 cents...
For AMQ 5: Active / Passive or Active / Standby makes sense for H/A. NOB
it does not apply - each "node" (H/A pair in case every broker is running
in H/A) has active/passive pairs. So yes, a NOB could have a bunch of
brokers all in Active state if none of the nodes is running H/A.
+1 Chris and Justin rationale. I agree with having an agreed upon set of noun
and adjective pairs for the project that the brokers can adopt accordingly.
Regarding the url term usage in ActiveMQ 5.x— that instance of the terminology
usage is being corrected in an open PR, and can safely be disre
Justin,
Looks like you sent your response right when I sent mine where I mentioned
I was leaning towards having different terms between brokers.
You more accurately described the situation than I did. It's not so much a
difference between 5.x and Artemis but two different scenarios of runtime
vs
I'd be ok with Active/Standby specifically for 5.x, but not sure if it
works for Artemis or not without thinking about it more so I'd want to hear
from people with more Artemis experience.
I am starting to think more and more that to be the most accurate we may
need different terms for each broker
> When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
broker name what should they see?
It depends on which ActiveMQ broker they're using.
In ActiveMQ "Classic" there is no configured state, as you note. There is
only runtime state, and it makes sense for that to be something li
When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the broker
name what should they see?
Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB cluster
see the term ‘primary’ 5 times?
Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of ‘primar
+1 for Primary/Backup with my reasoning below.
First, it's pretty clear like "leader/follower" is a no go based on the
feedback so far so we can throw that out.
For HA, there are slightly different use cases here depending on the broker
and mode chosen with how HA works which is probably why ther
On 5/6/22 02:26, Tetreault, Lucas wrote:
[ ] Primary/Backup
[+1] Primary/Backup
--
Tim Bish
because that is actually what master/slave evolate, when in a new era.
Xeno Amess 于2022年5月6日周五 20:33写道：
> +1 for capitalist/worker
>
> Clebert Suconic 于2022年5月6日周五 20:27写道：
>
>> We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for
>> Primary/Backup
>>
>>
>> if you still want to kee
+1 for capitalist/worker
Clebert Suconic 于2022年5月6日周五 20:27写道：
> We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for
> Primary/Backup
>
>
> if you still want to keep the vote for that...
>
> [+1] primary/backup
> [-1000] Leader/Follower
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:57 AM Robbie Gem
We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for Primary/Backup
if you still want to keep the vote for that...
[+1] primary/backup
[-1000] Leader/Follower
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:57 AM Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> Of the various things mentioned so far I would go with Primary/Ba
Of the various things mentioned so far I would go with Primary/Backup
or Primary/Replica.
Sticking to just the original choices in this thread only, that would be:
[+1] Primary/Backup
[-1] Leader/Follower
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 11:43, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26, Tetreau
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that
> this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final
I'd be +1 on active/passive as well.
Jon
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:06 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> -1 for leader/follower, it doesn't apply for current master/slave
> mechanism, it's not the same semantic as in Kafka for instance
> -1 for primary/backup, technically, this one could work, but
+1 for active/passive - very often is used in conversation
Regards
Iliya Grushevskiy
> 6 мая 2022 г., в 09:26, Tetreault, Lucas
> написал(а):
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it
-1 for leader/follower, it doesn't apply for current master/slave
mechanism, it's not the same semantic as in Kafka for instance
-1 for primary/backup, technically, this one could work, but it sounds
"confusing" to me
+1 for active/passive is probably the most accurate and describe the
behavior (we
[+1] Leader/Follower
[-1] Primary/Backup - it doesn't sound right to me, as it doesn't imply
that there might be a role switch.
Krzysztof
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:26 AM Tetreault, Lucas
wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer
Hey folks,
I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this
was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion
on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not suppose
23 matches
Mail list logo
