Ok, sorry, I just tested and checked the code, and yes we can still leave the default group :-) The thing you cannot do is delete the default group .. but leaving/joining is still possible. Tell me when you want to review the code, if you have any question about it.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:13 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Great, I'm proposing to review the change in early stage with you. > > Don't hesitate to ping me then. > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > On 01/25/2018 11:10 AM, Thomas Draier wrote: > > I will go back to #44 then :-) > > > > Yes, we are using a fork with changes from #44. And also some other > changes > > in the synchronizers - we are currently reviewing if there are still > things > > we may need to push to the master or if they have already been fixed. > > > > thomas > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:02 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> That's bad: a node can leave the default group. > >> > >> I didn't approve https://github.com/apache/karaf-cellar/pull/44 yet, > >> especially > >> because it changes the group management. That's why I would like to do a > >> deep > >> review ;) > >> I guess you are using a fork on Cellar with your changes, right ? > >> > >> Let me check the sync change I did. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 01/25/2018 10:57 AM, Thomas Draier wrote: > >>> Hi JB, > >>> > >>> I did not move the node to groupA, as all groups always belong to > default > >>> and we cannot "leave" default group (or should they not ? maybe I broke > >>> this in https://github.com/apache/karaf-cellar/pull/44 ? ). In our > case > >> we > >>> need to have nodes belong to multiple groups - we have a "limited" > group > >>> for deploying bundles only on a sub set of nodes, but deployment on > >> default > >>> should still deploy on all nodes. > >>> > >>> We are on a quite old version of cellar ( karaf 4.0.7 / cellar 4.0.2 ), > >> can > >>> you point me to the changes on sync you are talking ? We can probably > >>> upgrade cellar but upgrading karaf will be more difficult, is is > possible > >>> to cellar 4.1.x on karaf 4.0.7 ? > >>> > >>> Thanks ! > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:30 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Thomas, > >>>> > >>>> did you move the nodes to default to groupA ? > >>>> > >>>> If nodes belong to multiple groups, it's the expected behavior. > >>>> > >>>> Union of groups is not a good setup as you can have slight difference. > >>>> That's why you have the cluster:group-move/set. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> JB > >>>> > >>>> On 01/25/2018 10:21 AM, Thomas Draier wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> We have been trying to use cellar groups for our cluster deployments. > >> The > >>>>> idea was to be able to deploy one bundle to only a subset of nodes, > but > >>>>> actually we did not manage to make it work. > >>>>> > >>>>> We created one single group, say groupA that contains 2 nodes, in > >>>> addition > >>>>> to the default group, which contain all nodes. Both groups use the > >>>>> "cluster" configuration (pull / push), bundles can be handled by any > >>>> group > >>>>> (no whitelist/blacklist), and no local listener is configured. > >>>>> > >>>>> Basically, when we deploy a module on groupA, the module is correctly > >>>>> installed on all nodes of this group, and everything goes fine. > >> However, > >>>> if > >>>>> a sync is done on the default group, the bundle will be immediately > >>>>> uninstalled, as the "pull" operation will see this bundle as local > only > >>>>> (it's not in default group) and will uninstall it. > >>>>> > >>>>> On the other hand, if we deploy a module on default group, it's > >> correctly > >>>>> installed everywhere, but the next sync of groupA will uninstall the > >>>> bundle > >>>>> from the 2 nodes that it owns. > >>>>> > >>>>> Since sync are done automatically quite often, including at startup, > >> some > >>>>> bundles can get unexpectedly uninstalled at any time. At startup, > since > >>>> all > >>>>> groups are syncing in a random order - the last group to sync will > >> "win", > >>>>> so will reinstall bundles that were just uninstalled by the previous > >>>> sync - > >>>>> but bundles only installed on other groups will be removed. > >>>>> > >>>>> We were thinking of different possible fixes for handling that ( > maybe > >>>>> changing the sync, checking that the bundle is not part of any > cluster > >>>>> group before uninstalling it or changing its state ), but it's > actually > >>>> not > >>>>> quite clear what is the expected behaviour and how it is supposed to > >>>> work. > >>>>> Is there anything wrong in the way we are using groups ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thomas > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> [email protected] > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >> > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
