Also late response... sorry about that. I'm +1 on removing this, "clustering" as a concept is an okay thing-- but clustering in ATS today requires L2 connectivity-- which in practice most people can't really use.
Even if that was a viable option, the clustering doesn't give enough controls for operability (canaries, etc.) so it ends up being more of a problem. On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 4:09 PM, McClimont, Aaron (SACE) < aaron.mcclim...@sa.gov.au> wrote: > Bryan, > > Some (more) late feedback for the proposal to remove clustering > support... We are also using clustering for the management of configuration > between multiple load balancing nodes using cluster.type = 1 (full), > although we could get by with cluster.type = 2 (management only). We would > certainly appreciate at least the configuration management being supported > in 7.0.0+, we don't specifically need the clustered cache feature. > > Regards, > > Aaron McClimont > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Call [mailto:bc...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, 9 September 2016 4:29 AM > To: users@trafficserver.apache.org > Cc: d...@trafficserver.apache.org > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Removing clustering support in 7.0.0 > > After discussing with the other committers on the project we have decided > to remove the clustering feature in ATS 7.0.0. > > There are people in the community that are using configuration management > (Puppet, Chef, Salt, etc.) for large installations. If you need help on > syncing configuration outside of ATS, there is a very good chance other > people in the community would be willing to help. This might be a great > opportunity to add some tools or examples to ATS to help out other people > in the community with configuration management. > > Thank you, > > -Bryan > > > > > On Aug 29, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Nguyen, Hai <hngu...@forcepoint.com> wrote: > > > > We are running Management-Only clustering (cluster.type = 2) > > > > From: Bryan Call [mailto:bc...@apache.org] > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 4:33 PM > > To: Nguyen, Hai > > Cc: d...@trafficserver.apache.org; users@trafficserver.apache.org > > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Removing clustering support > > in7.0.0 > > > > What cluster mode are you running (proxy.local.cluster.type)? > > > > -Bryan > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Nguyen, Hai <hngu...@forcepoint.com> wrote: > > > > We are using clustering to share configuration settings in environments > that do load balancing across multiple proxies. Administrators that have > large deployments would need to configure every proxy manually. > > > > -Hai > > From: Bryan Call [mailto:bc...@apache.org] > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:52 PM > > To: Nguyen, Hai > > Cc: d...@trafficserver.apache.org; users@trafficserver.apache.org > > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Removing clustering support in > > 7.0.0 > > > > Can you talk about how you are using the clustering feature? Would > parent proxying also work for your use case? > > > > -Bryan > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Nguyen, Hai <hngu...@forcepoint.com> wrote: > > > > I’m sorry for sending the feedback on this proposal late. Can we please > keep the clustering feature? We’ve been using it extensively here. > > > > Thanks, > > -Hai > > > > From: Bryan Call [mailto:bc...@apache.org] > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:20 PM > > To: d...@trafficserver.apache.org > > Cc: users@trafficserver.apache.org > > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [PROPOSAL] Removing clustering support in 7.0.0 > > > > Thank you for all the feedback on this proposal. Removing clustering > support will be done in 7.0.0. > > > > -Bryan > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 3:18 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > There are a few features we are looking to remove in the ATS 7.0.0 > release. If you are using these features and require them, please respond > to this email. We also need to have people that are willing to invest time > and fix some of the bugs for these features. Your feedback is very > important! > > > > There are a number of bugs filed against clustering. There are > alternatives to using clustering, such as parent selection and the CARP > plugin that Yahoo is open sourcing. If we are going to keep clustering > supporting we would need someone that is willing to work on the bugs. > > > > The proposal is to remove the configurations options for clustering and > remove the code for it. > > > > I've seen a few people asking about clustering recently, so it seems > like there is interest. But it *really* needs a code owner to make it live. > Count me as a +0. > > > > > > A serious issue with the lack of developer support is that other areas > of the code suffers. Meaning, we have a hard time making progress with > other areas (like metrics, or configurations), because we don’t have anyone > who’s testing and maintaining the clustering feature. > > > > This is a tough one though, the general feature is useful, but we’re > seriously crippling ourselves with an unsupported legacy system. > > > > +0 from me as well. > > > > — Leif > > > > > > > > Scanned by Forcepoint Email Security Gateway Click here to report this > > email as spam > > > > > > > > Scanned by Forcepoint Email Security Gateway Click here to report this > > email as spam > > > > > > > > Scanned by Forcepoint Email Security Gateway Click here to report this > > email as spam > >
