Jörg I avoided multicast and preferred unicast based on many discussions in the newsgroups and other sites. In particular, the ElasticSearch Preflight Checklist<http://asquera.de/opensource/2012/11/25/elasticsearch-pre-flight-checklist/>. Within this checklist, the sections entitled DISCOVERY and AVOIDING SPLIT-BRAINS were the recommendationsI that I followed. This write-up didn't say that mutlicast was bad, but neither have I read before that unicast was a nightmare.
Whenever you get a chance, if you could describe the provisioning issues and failures, that would help to shed some more light on this subject. And it does seem that somebody needs to waste time counting hosts. You stated (and I agree) that minimum_master_nodes must be set to N/2 + 1, and N must be specified by the system admin... via counting? Or is there something else I am not seeing? Brian On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 12:15:27 PM UTC-5, Jörg Prante wrote: > > Unicast is a nightmare for large ES deployments, with provisioning and > failures all the time. I'm used to DHCP/TFTP/PXE in my DC thanks to RedHat > so why should I waste time setting up hostnames or count hosts for ES? > > Jörg > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/4353c8da-b73e-4175-a083-a80ea3d65f69%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
