[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-629?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13988790#comment-13988790
]
Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-629:
-------------------------------------
[~fpj] I understood the point. I took sometime on analysis, here I've noticed
few impacts on Auto-Recovery module. What you all feel about the following case,
Auditor process sees the bookie availability by comparing(string comparison)
the bookie Ids. Assume BK-1(4.2.x) acts as Auditor node and another BK-2
(4.2.x) node has upgraded to 4.3.0. Now Auditor will report BK-2 as unavailable
and trigger ledger checks.
Thanks,
Rakesh
> Support hostname based ledger metadata to help users to change IP with
> existing installation
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-629
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-629
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: bookkeeper-auto-recovery, bookkeeper-client,
> bookkeeper-server
> Affects Versions: 4.2.1
> Reporter: Vinayakumar B
> Assignee: Rakesh R
> Fix For: 4.3.0
>
> Attachments: 1-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch, 10-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch,
> 11-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch, 2-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch, 3-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch,
> 4-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch, 5-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch, 6-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch,
> 7-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch, 9-BOOKKEEPER-629.patch
>
>
> Register the bookie with *hostname:port* and also store the bookie addresses
> as *hostname:port* in ledger metadata files instead of *ip:port*
> This will help users to change the machine IP if they want without loosing
> their data.
> Supporting hostname based installation/functionality is one of the important
> requirement of users.
> Any thoughts?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
