Hi Sathwik, I attached the patch to the JIRA ODE-563. All the changes are available in the patch.
regards, Sudharma On 30 June 2015 at 18:43, Sathwik B P <sathwik...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sudharma, > > Can you contribute your code as patch and attach it to the JIRA ODE-563. > > You could create the patch file in this way. > git diff master ODECluster > cluster_patch1.patch > > Make sure all your changes are available in the patch. > > regards, > sathwik > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:51 PM, sudharma subasinghe < > suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk > > wrote: > > > Hi Sathwik, > > > > I modified the code as you explained. You can go through the code by > > following link. > > https://github.com/Subasinghe/ode/tree/ODECluster > > > > It would be helpful if you can provide a feedback on this. > > > > Thank you. > > > > On 10 June 2015 at 12:39, sudharma subasinghe <suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Sathwik, > > > > > > I tried to implement your logic also. Following is the link for > committed > > > code upto now. > > > https://github.com/Subasinghe/ode/tree/ODECluster > > > > > > I used info msgs to debugging as it can be observed easily in console. > > > When releasing the lock acquired by poller or web service the state is > > set > > > to false as in my code. But sometimes it is set to true and at that > time > > > second server's value is also true. Following is the related log for > > each > > > server. > > > > > > Server 1 > > > 02:12:02,957 INFO [DeploymentPoller] Trying to access the lock for > > > MagicSession > > > 02:12:02,962 INFO [HazelcastClusterImpl] ThreadID:63 duLocked value > for > > > MagicSession file after locking: true > > > 02:12:03,838 INFO [BpelServerImpl] Registered process { > > > http://ode/bpel/unit-test}MagicSessionMain-3. > > > 02:12:04,015 INFO [BpelServerImpl] Registered process { > > > http://ode/bpel/responder}MagicSessionResponder-3. > > > 02:12:04,015 INFO [DeploymentPoller] Deployment of artifact > MagicSession > > > successful: [{http://ode/bpel/unit-test}MagicSessionMain-3, { > > > http://ode/bpel/responder}MagicSessionResponder-3] > > > 02:12:04,015 INFO [DeploymentPoller] Trying to release the lock for > > > MagicSession > > > 02:12:04,017 INFO [HazelcastClusterImpl] ThreadID:63 duLocked value > for > > > MagicSession file after unlocking: true > > > > > > Server 2 > > > 02:12:03,119 INFO [DeploymentPoller] Trying to access the lock for > > > MagicSession > > > 02:12:04,017 INFO [HazelcastClusterImpl] ThreadID:61 duLocked value > for > > > MagicSession file after locking: true > > > 02:12:04,017 INFO [DeploymentPoller] Trying to release the lock for > > > MagicSession > > > 02:12:04,019 INFO [HazelcastClusterImpl] ThreadID:61 duLocked value > for > > > MagicSession file after unlocking: false > > > > > > Is this possible? But there were not any conflicts while deploying. It > > > worked perfectly. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > On 7 June 2015 at 11:10, sudharma subasinghe <suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Sathwik, > > >> > > >> I will concern your approach. Thank you for your effort. > > >> > > >> On 6 June 2015 at 18:43, Sathwik B P <sathwik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I have attached to the JIRA > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-563 > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:55 PM, sudharma subasinghe < > > >>> suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Hi Sathwik, > > >>> > > > >>> > I can't find the attached document. Please kind be enough to resend > > it. > > >>> > > > >>> > On 6 June 2015 at 15:42, Sathwik B P <sathwik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > Refer this one as I have corrected the numbering of steps. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Sathwik B P < > sathwik...@gmail.com> > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > >> Hi Sudharma/Tammo, > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> Kindly review attached document on my proposed approach. Let me > > >>> know if > > >>> > >> you have any concerns or doubts on it. > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> regards, > > >>> > >> sathwik > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Sathwik B P < > sathwik...@gmail.com > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> find response inline > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:22 PM, sudharma subasinghe < > > >>> > >>> suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk> wrote: > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> Hi, > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>>> Sorry for the late reply. I was trying to achieve a proper > > >>> solution. > > >>> > >>>> Following is my approach. > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>>> 1) I elected master node for deploying purpose. So when a > master > > >>> node > > >>> > >>>> goes > > >>> > >>>> down hazelcast will elect the next oldest node for master. > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> Perfect > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> 2) ODEServer can identify whether clustering is enabled or not > > by > > >>> > >>>> getting > > >>> > >>>> the property value in ode-axis2.properties file. So I > introduced > > >>> new > > >>> > >>>> property called "ode-axis2.hazelcast.clustering.enabled". If > > >>> there is > > >>> > no > > >>> > >>>> clustering enabled server will work as it is. If clustering is > > >>> > enabled, > > >>> > >>>> cluster will be initialized. > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> Perfect > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> 3) In manual deployment its responsibility is taken by the > > >>> > >>>> DeploymentPoller. So I give the deployment capability to > master > > >>> node,s > > >>> > >>>> poller by setting "isDeploymentFromODEFileSystemAllowed()" to > > >>> true.So > > >>> > >>>> others will not be able to go into check() method in > > >>> DeploymentPoller. > > >>> > >>>> So > > >>> > >>>> deployment will be done by only the master node. > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> Perfect > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>>> 4) In DeploymentWebService, I had to consider few cases.If the > > >>> deploy > > >>> > >>>> request goes to the master node, it will deploy the process > > >>> through > > >>> > web > > >>> > >>>> service.Others pollers will not go into check() method as they > > >>> are not > > >>> > >>>> masters. So master can continue without any involvement of > > others. > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>> Perfect > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> 5) If the deploy request goes to a slave node, it will do up > to > > >>> file > > >>> > >>>> creation in the file system.Slave will be stopped at that > point. > > >>> As > > >>> > only > > >>> > >>>> master poller is checking, master can continue from created > > files > > >>> in > > >>> > the > > >>> > >>>> file system. > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> DeploymentWebService provides synchronous operations. The > > >>> status of > > >>> > >>> the operation should be communicated to the calling client in > the > > >>> same > > >>> > call. > > >>> > >>> DeploymentPoller is a backend thread that goes over each > and > > >>> every > > >>> > >>> directory under the Deployment directory checking for any > changes > > >>> to > > >>> > >>> deploy.xml in existing processes and deploy newly added > > processes. > > >>> This > > >>> > >>> process is sequential and time consuming. As the process > > >>> directories > > >>> > >>> grows, so does the time taken for execution of the thread. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> Since the request is on a slave node and the processing is > > >>> done on > > >>> > >>> master node, how do you check for the completion of the > > >>> > >>> deployment/undeployment of processes and respond back to the > > client > > >>> > since > > >>> > >>> the web service call is a synchronous operation. As > > >>> DeploymentPoller is > > >>> > >>> taking a lot of time in processing, your request will time out > > >>> right. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>>> 6) But there was problem with _deploymentUnits in > > >>> ProcessStoreImpl. > > >>> > Each > > >>> > >>>> _deploymentUnits stores only what its server has deployed. So > > >>> think, > > >>> > >>>> that a > > >>> > >>>> master node goes down another master node appears.But its > > >>> > >>>> __deploymentUnits > > >>> > >>>> does not have dus which has deployed by the earlier master > node. > > >>> Hence > > >>> > >>>> it > > >>> > >>>> will not be able retire earlier version of the process which > is > > >>> > >>>> deployed by > > >>> > >>>> previous master. So there will two process which are in > "ACTIVE" > > >>> state > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> 7) To avoid this, I add the ODEServer as an Observer to check > > >>> when a > > >>> > new > > >>> > >>>> master is electing, then load all the deployment units out of > > the > > >>> > >>>> store. So > > >>> > >>>> new master node can have all the dus and can retire > appropriate > > >>> > version. > > >>> > >>>> Usually loadAll() is called at the server start-up time. But > > >>> there is > > >>> > no > > >>> > >>>> other way to solve this. I tried to use Hazelcast IMap to > store > > >>> all > > >>> > dus > > >>> > >>>> among all nodes. But it wasn't success as du is not > serializable > > >>> > >>>> object. > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> 8) I figured out that we do not need send cluster message to > > >>> others as > > >>> > >>>> all > > >>> > >>>> the dus' data are persisted to the shared DB. So each node can > > >>> take > > >>> > the > > >>> > >>>> du > > >>> > >>>> and retrieve necessary data using already implemented methods > in > > >>> > Process > > >>> > >>>> Store. > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>>> 9) But there is an another problem.The axis2 service > > >>> corresponding to > > >>> > a > > >>> > >>>> deployed process does not appear on all nodes of the cluster. > > >>> That is > > >>> > >>>> because each server add du which is deployed by it to the > > process > > >>> > >>>> store.That is why I had use loadAll() when masters are > changing. > > >>> How > > >>> > to > > >>> > >>>> solve this? > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> I do appriciate your efforts in understanding the > > >>> implmentation and > > >>> > >>> changes that need to be done. You are bang on it. > > >>> > >>> fireEvent(..) is the method that triggers process > activation > > >>> and > > >>> > >>> necessary service creation. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> But with this given apporach from steps 6 to 8, ODE cannot > > have > > >>> > >>> atleast 2 Active servers for Load balancing. You are > > concentrating > > >>> on > > >>> > only > > >>> > >>> one active node that will do deployments and cater to process > > >>> > invocations. > > >>> > >>> We should also think about scaling ODE to multiple servers > to > > >>> > handle > > >>> > >>> load. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> What do you think. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>>> Thank you, > > >>> > >>>> Sudharma > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>>> On 2 June 2015 at 08:51, Sathwik B P <sathwik...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>>> > Sudharma, > > >>> > >>>> > > > >>> > >>>> > Any updates? > > >>> > >>>> > > > >>> > >>>> > regards, > > >>> > >>>> > sathwik > > >>> > >>>> > > > >>> > >>>> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Sathwik B P < > > >>> sathwik...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >>>> wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > > > >>> > >>>> > > Sudharma, > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > > Can you elaborate on your option 1). > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > > Response to your option 2). > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > > Process Store is the component that handles process > > >>> metadata, > > >>> > >>>> > > compilation and deployment in ODE. Integration layers in > ODE > > >>> > >>>> (Axis2, JBI) > > >>> > >>>> > > use the process store. > > >>> > >>>> > > Future implementations of IL for ODE will also use the > > >>> process > > >>> > >>>> store. > > >>> > >>>> > > We should not be thinking of moving the process store > > >>> > functionality > > >>> > >>>> to > > >>> > >>>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > > integration layers. > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:33 PM, sudharma subasinghe < > > >>> > >>>> > > suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk> wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> Hi, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> I understood the problem within dynamic master/slave > > >>> > >>>> configuration. In > > >>> > >>>> > my > > >>> > >>>> > >> approach, when a deployment request is routed to a slave > > node > > >>> > >>>> there will > > >>> > >>>> > >> not be a deployment. I suggest two options to avoid it. > > >>> > >>>> > >> 1) Have static master/slave configuration only for deploy > > >>> process > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >>>> > > 2) Modify the deployment web service to complie and verify > > the > > >>> > >>>> process > > >>> > >>>> > and > > >>> > >>>> > >> then copy it to the deploy folder irrespective of whether > > >>> its a > > >>> > >>>> master > > >>> > >>>> > or > > >>> > >>>> > >> slave, then deployment poller should take care of the > > >>> deployment > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> On 28 May 2015 at 14:43, Sathwik B P < > sathwik...@gmail.com > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > Sudharma, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > We definitely need a master/slave in the hazelcast > > cluster. > > >>> > This > > >>> > >>>> is > > >>> > >>>> > >> > probably needed for the job migration in the Scheduler > to > > >>> > >>>> migrate the > > >>> > >>>> > >> jobs > > >>> > >>>> > >> > associated with a down node. Let hold on this topic for > > >>> future > > >>> > >>>> > >> discussion. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > Going by the explanation where the master/slave nodes > > have > > >>> > >>>> certain > > >>> > >>>> > >> > predefined tasks to perform is perfectly fine. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > I have this scenario, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > I am using HAProxy as my load balancer and configured 3 > > >>> nodes > > >>> > in > > >>> > >>>> the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > cluster. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > Node1 - Active > > >>> > >>>> > >> > Node2 - Active > > >>> > >>>> > >> > Node3 - Backup > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > Load balancing algorithm: RoundRobin > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > A Backup node (Node3) is one which the load balancer > will > > >>> not > > >>> > >>>> route > > >>> > >>>> > >> > requests to, until one of the Active node i.e either > > Node1 > > >>> or > > >>> > >>>> Node2 > > >>> > >>>> > has > > >>> > >>>> > >> > gone down. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > All these 3 nodes are also part of the hazelcast > cluster > > as > > >>> > well. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > In the hazelcast cluster, assume Node1 is elected as > the > > >>> > >>>> leader/master > > >>> > >>>> > >> and > > >>> > >>>> > >> > Node2,Node3 as slaves. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > I initiate the deploy operation on the > > DeploymentWebService > > >>> > >>>> which the > > >>> > >>>> > >> load > > >>> > >>>> > >> > balancer routes it to one of the Active nodes in the > > >>> cluster, > > >>> > >>>> lets say > > >>> > >>>> > >> it's > > >>> > >>>> > >> > the Node1. Since Node1 is also the master in the > > hazelcast > > >>> > >>>> cluster, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > deployment is a success. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > I initiate another deploy operation on the > > >>> DeploymentWebService > > >>> > >>>> which > > >>> > >>>> > >> the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > load balancer routes it to the next active node which > is > > >>> Node2. > > >>> > >>>> Since > > >>> > >>>> > >> Node2 > > >>> > >>>> > >> > is a slave in the Hazelcast cluster, What happens to > the > > >>> > >>>> deployment? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > regards, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > sathwik > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:55 PM, sudharma subasinghe < > > >>> > >>>> > >> > suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > Hi, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > I will explain my approach as much as possible. The > > >>> oldest > > >>> > >>>> node in > > >>> > >>>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > hazelcast cluster is elected as the master node. In > the > > >>> > >>>> failure of > > >>> > >>>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > master node, next oldest node will be elected as the > > >>> master > > >>> > >>>> node. > > >>> > >>>> > This > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > master-slave configuration is just for deployment. > When > > >>> the > > >>> > >>>> > hazelcast > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > cluster elected the master node, that node becomes a > > >>> master > > >>> > >>>> node for > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > deploying process. So it will do the deploying > > >>> artifacts. If > > >>> > >>>> you > > >>> > >>>> > want > > >>> > >>>> > >> to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > get the idea of electing master node please refer the > > >>> code > > >>> > >>>> which I > > >>> > >>>> > >> have > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > located in the github. ( > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > https://github.com/Subasinghe/ode/tree/ode_clustering) > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > I identified separated actions which should be > followed > > >>> by > > >>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > master > > >>> > >>>> > >> and > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > salve nodes. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > Actions which are followed by master node only > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > 1) create deployment unit > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > 2) set the version nu to deployment unit > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > 3) compile deployment unit > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > 4) scan deployment unit > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > 5) retire previous versions > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > Master node and slave nodes should create _processes > > >>> which > > >>> > >>>> stores > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > ProcessConfImpl > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > Only master node will write the version nu to > database, > > >>> > create > > >>> > >>>> > >> .deployed > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > file > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > So there are some actions which should be followed > only > > >>> by > > >>> > >>>> master > > >>> > >>>> > node > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > while other actions should be followed by all the > > >>> nodes.The > > >>> > >>>> idea of > > >>> > >>>> > >> > having > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > a master node is deploying artifacts and avoid others > > >>> from > > >>> > >>>> writing > > >>> > >>>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > version nu to database. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > Whether a node is active or passive, all nodes should > > do > > >>> the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > deployment.Master > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > and slaves will follow necessary actions as in above. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > On 27 May 2015 at 15:49, Sathwik B P < > > >>> sathwik...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >>>> wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > Nandika, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > I very well understand what you have put across, > but > > >>> it's > > >>> > >>>> > secondary > > >>> > >>>> > >> to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > me > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > now. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > Sudharma, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > My primary concern is to understand at a high level > > the > > >>> > >>>> deployment > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > architecture and how would master-slave > configuration > > >>> fit > > >>> > >>>> in. Are > > >>> > >>>> > >> there > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > any > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > restrictions imposed by the in-progress design? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > Firstly, how would ODE process deployment work > under > > >>> these > > >>> > >>>> cluster > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > configurations? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > Sample Cluster configurations: A load balancer is > > >>> > >>>> frontending the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > servers. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > 1) Cluster consisting of 2 nodes all Active-Active. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > 2) Cluster consisting of 2 nodes Active-Passive. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > 3) Cluster with 2+ nodes with additional nodes > either > > >>> in > > >>> > >>>> Active or > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > Passive. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > regards, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > sathwik > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Nandika > Jayawardana > > < > > >>> > >>>> > >> > jayaw...@gmail.com > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > Hi Sathwik, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > According to my understanding, in the clustering > > >>> > scenario, > > >>> > >>>> the > > >>> > >>>> > >> master > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > node > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > should perform all the deployment actions and the > > >>> slave > > >>> > >>>> nodes > > >>> > >>>> > also > > >>> > >>>> > >> > need > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > perform some deployment actions. For example, the > > >>> slave > > >>> > >>>> nodes > > >>> > >>>> > also > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > should > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > handle the process ACTIVATED event so that the > > >>> process > > >>> > >>>> > >> configuration > > >>> > >>>> > >> > is > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > added to the engine and necessary web services > are > > >>> > created > > >>> > >>>> so > > >>> > >>>> > that > > >>> > >>>> > >> > when > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > load balancer send requests to any node in the > > >>> cluster, > > >>> > it > > >>> > >>>> is > > >>> > >>>> > >> ready > > >>> > >>>> > >> > to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > accept those requests. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > Regards > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > Nandika > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Sathwik B P < > > >>> > >>>> > >> sathwik...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > Sudharma, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > Where are you going to configure the > > >>> master-slaves, is > > >>> > >>>> it in > > >>> > >>>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > web > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > application level or at the load balancer? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > regards, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > sathwik > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:42 PM, sudharma > > >>> subasinghe < > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > Hi Tammo, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > Can you suggest the best method from these to > > >>> > >>>> implement? As > > >>> > >>>> > >> > first I > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > suggested the master-slaves scenario I think > it > > >>> is > > >>> > >>>> easy to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > implement > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > than > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > distributed lock scenario. However if you can > > >>> suggest > > >>> > >>>> one > > >>> > >>>> > from > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > these > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > two, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > then I can think about it. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > Thank you > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > On 21 May 2015 at 12:40, Sathwik B P < > > >>> > >>>> sathwik...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > With respect to the hotdeployment, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > We can drop the deployment archive onto the > > >>> > >>>> deployment > > >>> > >>>> > >> folder. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > Since > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > DeploymentPoller are acquiring the > > distributed > > >>> lock > > >>> > >>>> for > > >>> > >>>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > DeploymentUnit, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > only one of the nodes will get the lock and > > >>> > initiate > > >>> > >>>> the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > deployment. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > DeploymentPollers on other nodes will fail > in > > >>> > >>>> acquiring > > >>> > >>>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > lock > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > and > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > hence > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > will silently ignore it. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Sathwik B > > P < > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > sathwik...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Tammo, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > The distributed lock acquisition on the > > >>> > >>>> DeploymentUnit > > >>> > >>>> > >> should > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > be > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > added > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > both DeploymentWebService and > > >>> DeploymentPoller. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > When a deployment operation is initiated > > >>> through > > >>> > >>>> the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > DeploymentWebService, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > The load balancer routes it to any of the > > >>> > available > > >>> > >>>> > nodes. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > On the routed node, the > > DeploymentWebService > > >>> > >>>> acquires > > >>> > >>>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > Distributed > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > lock. On the remaining nodes the > > >>> DeploymentPoller > > >>> > >>>> will > > >>> > >>>> > >> try to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > acquire > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > distributed lock and will not get it and > > >>> hence > > >>> > will > > >>> > >>>> > >> silently > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > ignore > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > it. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Once the routed node completes the > > >>> deployment, it > > >>> > >>>> will > > >>> > >>>> > >> > release > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > lock. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > This way we don't have to stall the > > >>> > >>>> DeploymentPoller in > > >>> > >>>> > >> other > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > nodes. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Does it answer the concerns? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Now, if we give the responsibility of > > >>> identifying > > >>> > >>>> the > > >>> > >>>> > >> master > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > node > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > hazelcast, how do we plan to intimate the > > >>> load > > >>> > >>>> balancer > > >>> > >>>> > to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > change > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > it's > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > configuration about the master node? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Assuming there are 3 nodes in the > cluster, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > node1 -master > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > node2 - slave > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > node3 - slave > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Node1 goes down, the LB will promote > Node2 > > as > > >>> > >>>> master > > >>> > >>>> > node, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > but > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > hazelcast > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > might promote Node3 as master node. They > > are > > >>> out > > >>> > of > > >>> > >>>> > sync. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Is this argument valid? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > regards, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > sathwik > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Tammo > van > > >>> > Lessen < > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > tvanles...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> Hi Sudharma, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> what do you expect from the "other nodes > > >>> > >>>> deployment"? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > Compilation > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > is > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > not > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> needed since the CBP file is written to > > the > > >>> > >>>> (shared) > > >>> > >>>> > FS. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > Registration > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > is > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> also not needed, since it is done via > the > > >>> shared > > >>> > >>>> > >> database. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > So > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > only > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> thing that might be needed is to tell > the > > >>> engine > > >>> > >>>> that > > >>> > >>>> > >> there > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > is a > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > new > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> deployment. I'd need to check that. If > > this > > >>> is > > >>> > >>>> needed, > > >>> > >>>> > I > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > revert > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > my > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > last > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> statement, then it is perhaps better to > > just > > >>> > send > > >>> > >>>> an > > >>> > >>>> > >> event > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > over > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > Hazelcast > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> to all nodes that the deployment has > > >>> changed. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> Best, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> Tammo > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, > sudharma > > >>> > >>>> subasinghe < > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> suba...@cse.mrt.ac.lk > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hi Tammo, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > The master node writes meta data. But > > >>> runtime > > >>> > >>>> > >> information > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > must > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > be > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> available > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > in all nodes.Since the folder is > shared, > > >>> all > > >>> > >>>> nodes > > >>> > >>>> > will > > >>> > >>>> > >> > see > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > availability of a new process. My idea > > is > > >>> for > > >>> > >>>> master > > >>> > >>>> > >> node > > >>> > >>>> > >> > to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > write > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> meta > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > data and other nodes to just read the > > meta > > >>> > data > > >>> > >>>> and > > >>> > >>>> > >> load > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > process.So > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > we > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> need > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > a small delay between master node > > >>> deployment > > >>> > and > > >>> > >>>> > other > > >>> > >>>> > >> > nodes > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > deployment. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Is there anyway to set the delay > between > > >>> > master > > >>> > >>>> node > > >>> > >>>> > >> and > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > slaves > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > until > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > master node finish the deployment? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thank you > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Sudharma > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > On 20 May 2015 at 13:01, Tammo van > > Lessen > > >>> < > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > tvanles...@gmail.com > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Sathwik, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:40 AM, > > >>> Sathwik B > > >>> > P < > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > sathwik...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Sudharma/Tammo, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 1) How do we plan to decide which > is > > >>> the > > >>> > >>>> master > > >>> > >>>> > >> node > > >>> > >>>> > >> > in > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > cluster? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > I think the easiest approach is to > > >>> always > > >>> > >>>> elect the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > oldest > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > node > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > in > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > cluster to be the master. AFAIK > > >>> Hazelcast > > >>> > can > > >>> > >>>> > easily > > >>> > >>>> > >> > asked > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > for > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > this > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > information. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2) Don't we need to stall the > > >>> Deployment > > >>> > >>>> Pollers > > >>> > >>>> > in > > >>> > >>>> > >> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > slave > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > nodes? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Absolutely. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Suggestion: > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I am not sure whether do we need > > >>> > >>>> Master-SLaves. > > >>> > >>>> > Why > > >>> > >>>> > >> > not > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > give > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > every > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> node > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > in > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > the cluster the same status > > >>> > (Active-Active). > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > When a new deployment is made, the > > >>> load > > >>> > >>>> balancer > > >>> > >>>> > >> can > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > push > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > it > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > to > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > any > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> of > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > available nodes. That node will > > >>> probably > > >>> > >>>> acquire > > >>> > >>>> > a > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > distributed > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > lock > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> on > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > deployment unit and acts as master > > for > > >>> > that > > >>> > >>>> > >> > deployment. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > This > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > ensures > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > optimum usage of the cluster > nodes. > > >>> > >>>> Probably no > > >>> > >>>> > >> static > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> configuration of > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Master-Slave in the load balancer > > nor > > >>> in > > >>> > the > > >>> > >>>> > >> > hazelcast. > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > But this would not allow to have the > > >>> > >>>> hotdeployment > > >>> > >>>> > >> via > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > filesystem > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> still > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > enabled, right? > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Best, > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Tammo > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > -- > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Tammo van Lessen - > > http://www.taval.de > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> -- > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > > > > >>> > >>>> > > > >>> > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
