Also, don't forget that you can start a server in a 'wait for locator' mode
(I forget the actual option) which should be distinguished from an actual
'orphaned' instance.

--Jens

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> I think the current behavior is probably left over from the multicast
> member discovery days, which are...thankfully...behind us.
>
>
> --
> Mike Stolz
> Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
> Mobile: +1-631-835-4771
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, at the very least it's an unusual configuration, so it would be
> > best if it required some explicit option to start server to say "Yes I
> know
> > what I'm doing...I really want a server that has no peers and no
> locator."
> >
> > Without that explicit acknowledgement it should just fail and report the
> > reason why.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mike Stolz
> > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
> > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 <(631)%20835-4771>
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree....
> >>
> >> +1 you can use stop/status by pointing at the directory where the server
> >> is logging.
> >>
> >> -1 You cannot connect to the server and issue the command "create
> region"
> >> or at the simplest "list members".
> >>
> >> The GFSH/management behavior should exactly the same as what one would
> >> have when one is "connected" to the system via locator/jmx
> >>
> >> --Udo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/5/17 15:47, Kirk Lund wrote:
> >>
> >>> But you can interact with it...
> >>>
> >>> 1) You can issue "stop server --dir=server1" which will stop it
> >>>
> >>> 2) You can issue "status server --dir=server1" which will show the
> status
> >>> for it
> >>>
> >>> 3) You can attach with JConsole and manipulate the MBeans. If the
> MBeans
> >>> have operations to create something you can invoke those. You can even
> >>> pass
> >>> gfsh commands to the server via MemberMXBean#processCommand. Is this
> >>> ideal?
> >>> No, but it's still "interactive" and not "orphaned."
> >>>
> >>> 4) Geode has a search pattern to search for cache.xml and if it finds
> one
> >>> it will use it. Perhaps the directly server1/ already exists and
> >>> contains a
> >>> cache.xml. Perhaps you have a cache.xml sitting in your user.home. So
> >>> even
> >>> if you specify the "start server --name=server1" as you state, it may
> >>> still
> >>> find a cache.xml to configure itself. I'm not saying this is better
> than
> >>> using GFSH to configure the server, but it exists today and your
> proposal
> >>> should explain how and why the search pattern for cache.xml is going
> away
> >>> or something like that if you do in fact want this feature to go away.
> >>>
> >>> -Kirk
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Once again..
> >>>>
> >>>> you missing the point... starting a server with "start server
> >>>> --name=server1".... without a locator or cache.xml or jmx-manager....
> >>>> you
> >>>> have created a useless server which you cannot interact with.... We
> >>>> need to
> >>>> avoid that...
> >>>>
> >>>> All the other discussions of how we can start an embedded locator or
> add
> >>>> extra properties to the starting of the server... is just noise...
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is... we allow for the creation of a server that cannot be
> >>>> accessed other than through a client pool... Which as a matter of fact
> >>>> cannot do anything with the server, OTHER than confirming it could
> >>>> connect
> >>>> to the server....
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/5/17 13:10, Anilkumar Gingade wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> One could create data model using cache.xml or embedded
> >>>>> application/api...The server/node could be used as front-end cache
> for
> >>>>> database to handle peek loads (or streamed data)....Client
> application
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> connect to the server and register interest, execute queries,
> >>>>> function....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Anil.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <
> ukohlme...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @Anil,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree... quick start to evaluate the product... "start server
> >>>>>> --name=server1" is the simplest way to start a server... BUT there
> >>>>>> are no
> >>>>>> regions or anything ... So we really only have a GemFire process
> that
> >>>>>> does
> >>>>>> not allow you to do anything with it... except connect to it from a
> >>>>>> client
> >>>>>> and even the client cannot do anything with the server, because it
> has
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> admin capability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --Udo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/5/17 10:53, Anilkumar Gingade wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But does a use case for a server with no locator exist? What about
> >>>>>> ease
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of development?
> >>>>>>>> I could see that it would be easier to start just a single server
> >>>>>>>> process instead of two (locator and server).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Agree with Darrel, for someone who is evaluating the product, it
> >>>>>>> helps
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> build quick application and play around, without getting too much
> >>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> cluster setup. Also, it is needed/helpful for use cases where its
> >>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>> embedded caching.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Anil.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Darrel Schneider <
> >>>>>>> dschnei...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I like the idea of servers failing to start if no locator exists.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But does a use case for a server with no locator exist? What about
> >>>>>>>> ease
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> development?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I could see that it would be easier to start just a single server
> >>>>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>> instead of two (locator and server). But for this use case
> couldn't
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> developer just configure a colocated locator in the same server
> >>>>>>>> process?
> >>>>>>>> This would have the benefit of the clients during development and
> >>>>>>>> production using a locator consistently.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is it true that the server with no locator will never have any
> peer
> >>>>>>>> members
> >>>>>>>> in its cluster?
> >>>>>>>> Clients can still connect to this singleton server by being
> >>>>>>>> configured
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> the server host and port instead of the locator.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Without connecting to the server, I think you can still stop it by
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> specifying --pid or --dir in "stop server" command.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer <
> >>>>>>>>> ukohlme...@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hey there,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Current Geode allows a user to start a server without being
> linked
> >>>>>>>>>> to a
> >>>>>>>>>> Locator. Which in itself is not incorrect, but once started
> there
> >>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> to connect to that server to manage it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I know that we have taken an opinionated view that member
> >>>>>>>>>> discovery
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>> only now happen through a locator and that multicast is an
> option
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> anymore.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Can we take the same opinionated view where we either state that
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> unless
> >>>>>>>>>> your server is connecting to a locator, it cannot be started OR
> we
> >>>>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> default behavior where we can start a server but cannot connect
> to
> >>>>>>>>> it,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> have to resort to "kill -9" commands to kill the server.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --Udo
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jinmei
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to