Hello, Are there any comments on the issue? Is it a bug? Or may be the expected behaviour and known incompatibility?
Thanks, - - Sergey 18.11.2021 17:37, Sergey Korotkov пишет: > Hello, > > We have a trouble migrating the persistent data from the Ignite 2.8.1 to > 2.11.0. The native persistence is used and one the caches has an > CacheInterceptor configured. > > If we run Ignite 2.11.0 against the persistent data created in 2.8.1 > nodes do not start (only the 1st node starts but all others fail) with > the exception like: > > INFO: Received activate cluster request with BaselineTopology[id=0] > initiator node ID: 43b7cd18-4366-44ef-8bfd-df4778bb4b23 > INFO: Started state transition: activate cluster > INFO: Started exchange init [topVer=AffinityTopologyVersion [topVer=2, > minorTopVer=1], crd=true, evt=DISCOVERY_CUSTOM_EVT, > evtNode=43b7cd18-4366-44ef-8bfd-df4778bb4b23, > customEvt=ChangeGlobalStateMessage > [id=d6445623d71-548457da-85c2-4abd-b6ac-0a8c39dec582, > reqId=02ac8e24-c461-4361-805d-75364a997a7b, > initiatingNodeId=43b7cd18-4366-44ef-8bfd-df4778bb4b23, state=ACTIVE, > baselineTopology=BaselineTopology [id=0, branchingHash=-2080344499, > branchingType='Cluster activation', baselineNodes=[node-1, node-2]], > forceChangeBaselineTopology=false, timestamp=1637228041860, > forceDeactivation=true], allowMerge=false, exchangeFreeSwitch=false] > SEVERE: Got exception while starting (will rollback startup routine). > class org.apache.ignite.IgniteCheckedException: Cache Interceptor > mismatch [cacheName=test-cache, localInterceptor=CacheInterceptor, > remoteInterceptor=null, rmtNodeId=92330e36-3a07-4a6e-b851-9e7fb6422e17] > Fix cache configuration or set system property -DIGNI > TE_SKIP_CONFIGURATION_CONSISTENCY_CHECK=true. > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheUtils.throwIgniteCheckedException(GridCacheUtils.java:1633) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheUtils.checkAttributeMismatch(GridCacheUtils.java:1002) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.ClusterCachesInfo.checkCache(ClusterCachesInfo.java:398) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.ClusterCachesInfo.onKernalStart(ClusterCachesInfo.java:341) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheProcessor.onKernalStart(GridCacheProcessor.java:687) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.IgniteKernal.start(IgniteKernal.java:1414) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.IgnitionEx$IgniteNamedInstance.start0(IgnitionEx.java:2141) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.IgnitionEx$IgniteNamedInstance.start(IgnitionEx.java:1787) > at > org.apache.ignite.internal.IgnitionEx.start0(IgnitionEx.java:1172) > at org.apache.ignite.internal.IgnitionEx.start(IgnitionEx.java:668) > at org.apache.ignite.internal.IgnitionEx.start(IgnitionEx.java:590) > at org.apache.ignite.Ignition.start(Ignition.java:328) > at ServerNode.startNode(ServerNode.java:57) > at ServerNode.main(ServerNode.java:20) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) > at > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62) > at > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498) > at org.codehaus.mojo.exec.ExecJavaMojo$1.run(ExecJavaMojo.java:293) > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) > > > We have prepared the small test to reproduce the problem. Test starts 2 > ignite nodes with native persistence enabled and creates cache with > interceptor. To see the problem test should be run twice: > > 1. Create the persistent cache using ignite 2.8.1: > > mvn clean package exec:java -Dignite.version=2.8.1 > > 2. Try to start ignite 2.11.0 nodes agains created cache data. One of > the nodes (node-2) will fail to start: > > mvn clean package exec:java -Dignite.version=2.11.0 > > > *** > > Looks like the issue was introduced in 2.9.1. Migration to 2.9.0 works > fine but all 2.9.1, 2.10.0, 2.11.0 fail. > > **** > > The error message suggests to use the > -DIGNITE_SKIP_CONFIGURATION_CONSISTENCY_CHECK=true. It does help. But > can it be safely used in production environment? What other important > checks would be skipped? > > Thanks, >
