Tom, Currently we have certain cases, where we use EOS to ensure that we process a set of northbound+southbound events on same node. (I am not sure whether that is the actual purpose of EOS, but we use it like that as well. ;)) This has certain issues that in a 3 node cluster, your entity owner might be node2, but the datastores you are writing to as a result of the event has a leader on node1, and the writes will end up being slow. So if I have a mechanism to force default-operational shard DTCNs to be processed on the leader of default-config-shard(if my writes as a result of the notifications is going to be config shard writes), I would like to use that.(I am not sure whether I made it clear, we can discuss this in our next genius meeting as well. I can point you to some usages in genius.) Thanks, Faseela
From: Tom Pantelis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 12:13 AM To: Faseela K <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Vorburger <[email protected]>; [email protected]; controller-dev <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Robert Varga <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [infrautils-dev] [controller-dev] OK to resurrect c/64522 to first move infrautils.DiagStatus integration for datastore from genius to controller, and then improve it for GENIUS-138 ? On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Faseela K <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Not related in this context, but if we can get shard leader change notification, can we use that to derive an entity owner instead of using EOS? ;) Not exactly sure what you mean but shards and EOS are 2 different concepts... Thanks, Faseela From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Tom Pantelis Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 12:07 AM To: Michael Vorburger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; controller-dev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Robert Varga <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [infrautils-dev] [controller-dev] OK to resurrect c/64522 to first move infrautils.DiagStatus integration for datastore from genius to controller, and then improve it for GENIUS-138 ? On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Michael Vorburger <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Robert, just to avoid any misunderstandings and unnecessary extra work to throw away, may we double check and confirm that we correctly understand your comment in https://jira.opendaylight.org/browse/GENIUS-138 to mean that we are past the "dependency of a mature project on an incubation project" objection and you are now OK with that we resurrect https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/64522/, to first move infrautils.DiagStatus integration for datastore from genius to controller? We would then improve it, in controller instead of genius, for the improvement proposed in issue GENIUS-138. Tom, OK for you as well to have such a dependency from controller to infrautils? I don't have a problem with it. BTW - I'm planning to add yang notifications to CDS to emit interesting state/status changes, eg akka member sate changes (Up, Down, Unreachable etc), shard leader/role changes .... Tx, M. -- Michael Vorburger, Red Hat [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | IRC: vorburger @freenode | ~ = http://vorburger.ch<http://vorburger.ch/> _______________________________________________ controller-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/controller-dev
_______________________________________________ controller-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/controller-dev
