Sounds good to me too.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:08 AM Ivan Daschinsky
wrote:
> Alex, I agree with your proposal. It is ok to start scanning servers
> firstly using the same default port, then continue with subsequent ports
> within range.
>
> пт, 20 янв. 2023 г. в 10:47, Alex Plehanov :
>
> >
Alex, I agree with your proposal. It is ok to start scanning servers
firstly using the same default port, then continue with subsequent ports
within range.
пт, 20 янв. 2023 г. в 10:47, Alex Plehanov :
> Pavel,
>
> But in this case connections still will be unbalanced for disabled
> partition awar
Pavel,
But in this case connections still will be unbalanced for disabled
partition awareness. What if we add some kind of heuristic for choosing the
first channel, for example, sort addresses by port and select random from
the set of addresses with the same (minimal) port? This will cover most of
Alex, I agree with proposals 2 and 3.
However, IGNITE-15807 is not about random server, it is about random port
on the same server.
As I understand, the scenario is: we know that the server is at address
a.b.c.d,
but we are not sure which port will be chosen,
because ClientConnectorConfiguration h
Hello, Igniters!
I've found that since Ignite 2.12 java thin client always connects to the
first address from the provided addresses list. In typical configuration
this leads to overloading one server node and underloading other server
nodes. Even when partition awareness is enabled some types of