[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13904208#comment-13904208
]
Jukka Zitting commented on OAK-1161:
------------------------------------
bq. OakInitializer#initialize will try to merge in some changes
If the repository already exists (which it would when accessing the repository
over HTTP), then there should be no need for the initializer to do anything.
And we shouldn't even need to run the OakInitializer on top of the HttpStore;
see below.
bq. Would the failover solution be a combination of a FileStore (possibly in
readonly mode) + HttpStore combo for the journal sync?
Yes. While the master is operational, the failover node would use the existing
backup code to continuously update a local FileStore using the HttpStore as the
source repository. When the master goes down, we'd terminate the backup
mechanism and start a new repository instance using the local FileStore as a
backend.
> Simple failover for TarMK-based installations
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-1161
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1161
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: segmentmk
> Reporter: Michael Marth
> Assignee: Alex Parvulescu
> Fix For: 0.17
>
>
> At the moment we have a Mongo-based MK impl that Oak users for scalable
> deployments and TarMK for standalone (performant) deployments. I think it is
> OK to not implement some sort of "scalability" into TarMK, even if I realize
> that the hierarchical journals allow us to do that later if we want to.
> However, it would even now be great to have a failover option for TarMK
> (MongoMK implictly offers this through replicas). This would not be about
> clustering or scalability, but only about reliability.
> I think there are 2 parts to this:
> # keeping a standby repository (slave) in sync and
> # the actual fail over.
> For the first part there could be a relatively simple way to implement this:
> Let's consider that there is only one slave and that the slave does not
> accept writes. Given the MVCC nature of the tar files we could simply sync
> the (append-only) tar files from the master to the slave on an ongoing basis.
> This could be similar to an rsync (or even use actual rsync)
> The slave would keep on receiving and locally persisting these files.
> Also, the slave would either need to be in a state where it is blocks writes
> or even in some sort of sleep state.
> I think this synchronization of files could be done a rather robust way where
> shaky networks or high latency could be recovered from by choosing a proper
> way of transfer.
> This sync to a remote system could be implemented similarly than a
> tarMK-based incremental backup (OAK-1159).
> For the failover:
> Ideally, we would have 2 implementations: a native failover and an external
> switch (like MBean or via HTTP) that would make the slave stop accepting
> files from master and start up on the last completely received revision. But
> simply having the second option would be a good start.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
