Hi, I t seems the property "localHost" is not valid. Is it supposed to be the same as "localAddress" ? https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/clustering/network-configuration I have read the docs about BasicAddressResolver but none of my attemps worked. It has been mentioned as a solution here https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30041.html but unfortunately no example is provided. So I have tried alternatively : but no result so far, I am still investigating. Regards
Le 07-Dec-2022 15:18:45 +0100, [email protected] a crit: Here is a javadoc for BasicAddressResolver that has an example https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/configuration/BasicAddressResolver.html Also, you could setup config file to have the property localHost set to your host IP for each container. 10.17.10.55 I hope it will work for you. -- Best regards, Aleksandr On 2022/12/07 12:49:27 [email protected] wrote: > Hello again, This is my main problem : I can't use "network" mode because we > already use user namespaces on these machines. And it's not compatible. Some > posts here and there suggested BasicAddressResolver could be solution, but no > example was provided and I am not really sure about what is offers and what > it doesn't. So I gave a try, but it seems it is not a workaround. If there > is no way to cluster it with NAT involved, I will have to find another > database. Regards > > Le 07-Dec-2022 13:38:50 +0100, [email protected] a crit: > Thank you for the valuable information. "with forced IP 192.168.1.99" -- I > think this is the reason. Ignite node does not know that its real IP is > 10.17.10.55. If it is possible to use host docker network I believe it should > help. https://docs.docker.com/network/host/ So, try to run both docker > containers with --network host. -- Best regards, Aleksandr > > On 2022/12/07 10:35:13 [email protected] wrote: > > Hi, 10.17.10.55 and 10.17.10.56 are the addresses of the VMs hosting the > > containers. > > My Ignite containers are based on the official image. So when I am logged > > (with "docker exec") into the one hosted on 10.17.10.55, with forced IP > > 192.168.1.99 (as it is not possible to force an address withing the > > "default" range) : bash-5.1# hostname > > aac1698dd409 bash-5.1# ip a > > 1: lo: mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 > > link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 > > inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > 11982: eth0@if11983: mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP > > link/ether 02:42:c0:a8:01:63 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > inet 192.168.1.99/16 brd 192.168.255.255 scope global eth0 > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > bash-5.1# ping 10.17.10.56 > > PING 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56): 56 data bytes > > 64 bytes from 10.17.10.56: seq=0 ttl=63 time=0.413 ms > > 64 bytes from 10.17.10.56: seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.352 ms > > bash-5.1# echo "10800 11211 47100 47500" | xargs -n 1 nc -vz 10.17.10.56 > > 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56:10800) open > > 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56:11211) open > > 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56:47100) open > > 10.17.10.56 (10.17.10.56:47500) open It seems ports exposed by the > > container hosted by the other VM can be reached. And of course, form the > > host itself : echo "10800 11211 47100 47500" | xargs -n 1 nc -vz > > 10.17.10.56 > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 10800 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 11211 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 47100 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 47500 port [tcp/*] succeeded! echo "10800 11211 > > 47100 47500" | xargs -n 1 nc -vz 10.17.10.55 > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 10800 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 11211 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 47100 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 47500 port [tcp/*] succeeded! Without adding the > > forced IP and the BasicAddressResolver I had the same results. Regards > > > > Le 07-Dec-2022 11:03:55 +0100, [email protected] a crit: > > Thanks for the clarification. It seems like your containers could not see > > each other via network. Could you please perform "cross check" out of the > > container? Say, you enter to the container with ip 10.17.10.55 and try to > > perform check to 10.17.10.56. You can use 'docker exec -it bash' to enter > > to the container. If there is no connection between containers, try to > > configure the docker network for therm. More info here > > https://docs.docker.com/network/network-tutorial-standalone/ -- Best > > regards, Aleksandr > > > > On 2022/12/06 08:27:20 [email protected] wrote: > > > Hi, Here is the whole configuration file with my latest experiements : > > > > > > 10.17.10.55 > > > 10.17.10.56 > > > > > > 10.17.10.55 and 56 are the external addresses of the the hosts. Of > > > course each node as a different interfal IP address and ConsistendId. > > > Regards > > > > > > Le 05-Dec-2022 12:59:39 +0100, [email protected] a crit: > > > Hi, could you please share the TCP/IP Discovery configuration? If you > > > have not configured it please check this > > > https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/clustering/tcp-ip-discovery -- > > > Best regards, Aleksandr > > > > > > On 2022/11/25 11:27:19 [email protected] wrote: > > > > Hi, I am trying to setup a two nodes replicated cluster, in an > > > > active/passive way. On each node, a Java webapp will be accessing the > > > > local database instance using JDBC. The app itself is stateless, but I > > > > need synced datas from the database. Ignite seems to be a nice choice, > > > > as I don't need advanced SQL features but replication and simplicity. > > > > So I am running an Ignite container on two differents hosts > > > > (10.17.10.55 and 10.17.10.56), using : docker run -v > > > > "/tmp/ignite.xml:/opt/ignite/apache-ignite/config/default-config.xml" > > > > -p "10800:10800" -p "11211:11211" -p "47100:47100" -p "47500:47500" -p > > > > "49112:49112" apacheignite/ignite:latest And here is the content of > > > > the file "ignite.xml" (of course, "consistentId" value is different for > > > > each host, the rest is the same). > > > > > > > > 10.17.10.55 > > > > 10.17.10.56 > > > > > > > > As far as I can see, when the containers are up, ports are exposed and > > > > firewall does not block communications (I have runned these two > > > > commands on both hosts, in order to "cross check"): echo "10800 11211 > > > > 47100 47500" | xargs nc -vz 10.17.10.55 > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 10800 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 11211 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 47100 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.55 47500 port [tcp/*] succeeded! echo "10800 > > > > 11211 47100 47500" | xargs nc -vz 10.17.10.56 > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 10800 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 11211 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 47100 port [tcp/*] succeeded! > > > > Connection to 10.17.10.56 47500 port [tcp/*] succeeded! But the two > > > > Ignite instances don't seem to communicate, as I get an error message > > > > like : Failed to connect to any address from IP finder (make sure IP > > > > finder addresses are correct and firewalls are disabled on all host > > > > machines): [/10.17.10.55:47500, /10.17.10.56:47500] Did I miss > > > > something ? A quick and dirty try with a local docker-compose and a > > > > config file which is the base of the one I tried here was running > > > > flawlessly. Regards > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > FreeMail powered by mail.fr > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > FreeMail powered by mail.fr > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > FreeMail powered by mail.fr > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > FreeMail powered by mail.fr > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > FreeMail powered by mail.fr > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FreeMail powered by mail.fr
