Again the same issue right? We keep starting and terminating instances
(it's just an increase of time).


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Lahiru Sandaruwan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Nirmal,
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Nirmal Fernando 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Lahiru,
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I don't get your point here and also I don't understand
>> how the proposed solution would solve this problem
>>
>
> mmm, Any specific point that you are not clear?
>
> Basically it solves the problem of recursively starting and terminating
> instances if there is a long running issue.
>
>
>
>
>>  (what if there's an error and that made member activation event to not
>> sent ever).
>>
>>
> If this happens only for one instance(Not sending member activation event
> for ever), it will only wait the given timeout(say 5 mins). So there is no
> issue.
>
> If this happens to consecutive instances(say 3), we can say that there is
> some long running issue. So we will wait more than the initial delay after
> 3 consecutive failures...
>
> And this is continuing, we can keep increasing the wait up to a ceiling...
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>> I wonder whether we need to be concerned on this kind of issues.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Isuru Haththotuwa <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> +1. We can make the waiting time x2 each time, but there should be a
>>> ceiling value as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Lahiru Sandaruwan <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Currently if an instance is not joined after a timeout, we will
>>>> terminate the instance and it will be removed from the pending state.
>>>> Then the Autoscaler will decide to spawn more instances according to
>>>> the rules, to cover terminated instances.
>>>> If there is an error which blocks sending member activate event( in the
>>>> cartridge, network or at any other place), system will be terminating and
>>>> starting instances continuously, which is an utter waste of resources.
>>>>
>>>> So I suggest following scenario,
>>>>
>>>> We keep a count of unactivated instances per cluster. If this count
>>>> exceeds a limit( say 3 - should be configurable), we will increase waiting
>>>> time on the next instance activation.  May be we keep increasing.
>>>> We can reset the count when ever a member activation  received.
>>>>
>>>> Wdyt?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my mobile.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>
>>> Isuru H.
>>> Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc.
>>> +94 716 358 048* <http://wso2.com/>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Nirmal
>>
>> Nirmal Fernando.
>> PPMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos,
>> Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc.
>>
>> Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Lahiru Sandaruwan
> Software Engineer,
> Platform Technologies,
> WSO2 Inc., http://wso2.com
> lean.enterprise.middleware
>
> email: [email protected] cell: (+94) 773 325 954
> blog: http://lahiruwrites.blogspot.com/
> twitter: http://twitter.com/lahirus
> linked-in: http://lk.linkedin.com/pub/lahiru-sandaruwan/16/153/146
>
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Nirmal

Nirmal Fernando.
PPMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos,
Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc.

Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/

Reply via email to