Each time when MD-SAL starts it creates shard member-1-shard-prefix-configuration-shard-config. This shard is created automatically. ODL does not have any explicit configuration for it.
What this shard is for? Is it only for internal usage or it can be used by a user?
The prefixed shard feature is intended to allow the data store to be sharded more granularly at any level in the yang tree rather than just top-level yang modules. There are cluster-admin RPCs to configure prefixed shards. However the feature should probably be considered alpha at this point and the original contributors abandoned it so no one is actively working on it.
Related
Yesterday, I was adding a node to production elasticsearch cluster once I added it I can use /_cat/health api to check number of relocating shards. And there is another api /_cat/shards to check which shards are getting relocated. However, is there any way or api to check live progress of shards/data movement to the newly added node. Suppose there is a 13GB shards, we've added a node to es cluster can we check how much percent, GBs(MBs or KBs) has moved currently so that we can have a estimate of how much time it will take for reallocation.
Can this be implemented by on our own or suggest this to elasticsearch? If it can be implemented on our own, how to proceed or what pre-requisites I need to know?
you have
GET _cat/recovery?active_only=true&v
GET _cat/recovery?active_only=true&h=index,shard,source_node,target_node,bytes_percent,time
https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/cat-recovery.html
Take a look to the Pending Tasks API :
https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/tasks.html
The task management API returns information about tasks currently executing on one or more nodes in the cluster.
GET /_tasks
You can also see the reasons for the allocation using the allocation explain API:
https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/cluster-allocation-explain.html
GET _cluster/allocation/explain
I am new to the topic. Having read a handful of articles on it, and asked a couple of persons, I still do not understand what you people do in regard to one problem.
There are UI clients making requests to several backend instances (for now it's irrelevant whether sessions are sticky or not), and those instances are connected to some highly available DB cluster (may it be Cassandra or something else of even Elasticsearch). Say the backend instance is not specifically tied to one or cluster's machines, and instead its every request to DB may be served by a different machine.
One client creates some record, it's synchronously of asynchronously stored to one of cluster's machines then eventually gets replicated to the rest of DB machines. Then another client requests the list or records, the request ends up served by a distant machine not yet received the replicated changes, and so the client does not see the record. Well, that's bad but not yet ugly.
Consider however that the second client hits the machine which has the record, displays it in a list, then refreshes the list and this time hits the distant machine and again does not see the record. That's very weird behavior to observe, isn't it? It might even get worse: the client successfully requests the record, starts some editing on it, then tries to store the updates to DB and this time hits the distant machine which says "I know nothing about this record you are trying to update". That's an error which the user will see while doing something completely legitimate.
So what's the common practice to guard against this?
So far, I only see three solutions.
1) Not actually a solution but rather a policy: ignore the problem and instead speed up the cluster hard enough to guarantee that 99.999% of changes will be replicated on the whole cluster in, say, 0.5 secord (it's hard to imagine some user will try to make several consecutive requests to one record in that time; he can of course issue several reading requests, but in that case he'll probably not notice inconsistency between results). And even if sometimes something goes wrong and the user faces the problem, well, we just embrace that. If the loser gets unhappy and writes a complaint to us (which will happen maybe once a week or once an hour), we just apologize and go on.
2) Introduce an affinity between user's session and a specific DB machine. This helps, but needs explicit support from the DB, and also hurts load-balancing, and invites complications when the DB machine goes down and the session needs to be re-bound to another machine (however with proper support from DB I think that's possible; say Elasticsearch can accept routing key, and I believe if the target shard goes down it will just switch the affinity link to another shard - though I am not entirely sure; but even if re-binding happens, the other machine may contain older data :) ).
3) Rely on monotonic consistency, i.e. some method to be sure that the next request from a client will get results no older than the previous one. But, as I understand it, this approach also requires explicit support from DB, like being able so pass some "global version timestamp" to a cluster's balancer, which it will compare with it's latest data on all machines' timestamps to determine which machines can serve the request.
Are there other good options? Or are those three considered good enough to use?
P.S. My specific problem right now is with Elasticsearch; AFAIK there is no support for monotonic reads there, though looks like option #2 may be available.
Apache Ignite has primary partition for a key and backup partitions. Unless you have readFromBackup option set, you will always be reading from primary partition whose contents is expected to be reliable.
If a node goes away, a transaction (or operation) should be either propagated by remaining nodes or rolled back.
Note that Apache Ignite doesn't do Eventual Consistency but instead Strong Consistency. It means that you can observe delays during node loss, but will not observe inconsistent data.
In Cassandra if using at least quorum consistency for both reads and writes you will get monotonic reads. This was not the case pre 1.0 but thats a long time ago. There are some gotchas if using server timestamps but thats not by default so likely wont be an issue if using C* 2.1+.
What can get funny is since C* uses timestamps is things that occur at "same time". Since Cassandra is Last Write Wins the times and clock drift do matter. But concurrent updates to records will always have race conditions so if you require strong read before write guarantees you can use light weight transactions (essentially CAS operations using paxos) to ensure no one else updates between your read to update, these are slow though so I would avoid it unless critical.
In a true distributed system, it does not matter where your record is stored in remote cluster as long as your clients are connected to that remote cluster. In Hazelcast, a record is always stored in a partition and one partition is owned by one of the servers in the cluster. There could be X number of partitions in the cluster (by default 271) and all those partitions are equally distributed across the cluster. So a 3 members cluster will have a partition distribution like 91-90-90.
Now when a client sends a record to store in Hazelcast cluster, it already knows which partition does the record belong to by using consistent hashing algorithm. And with that, it also knows which server is the owner of that partition. Hence, the client sends its operation directly to that server. This approach applies on all client operations - put or get. So in your case, you may have several UI clients connected to the cluster but your record for a particular user is stored on one server in the cluster and all your UI clients will be approaching that server for their operations related to that record.
As for consistency, Hazelcast by default is strongly consistent distributed cache, which implies that all your updates to a particular record happen synchronously, in the same thread and the application waits until it has received acknowledgement from the owner server (and the backup server if backups are enabled) in the cluster.
When you connect a DB layer (this could be one or many different types of DBs running in parallel) to the cluster then Hazelcast cluster returns data even if its not currently present in the cluster by reading it from DB. So you never get a null value. On updating, you configure the cluster to send the updates downstream synchronously or asynchronously.
Ah-ha, after some even more thorough study of ES discussions I found this: https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/search-request-preference.html
Note how they specifically highlight the "custom value" case, recommending to use it exactly to solve my problem.
So, given that's their official recommendation, we can summarise it like this.
To fight volatile reads, we are supposed to use "preference",
with "custom" or some other approach.
To also get "read your
writes" consistency, we can have all clients use
"preference=_primary", because primary shard is first to get all
writes. This however will probably have worse performance than
"custom" mode due to no distribution. And that's quite similar to what other people here said about Ignite and Hazelcast.
Right?
Of course that's a solution specifically for ES. Reverting to my initial question which is a bit more generic, turns out that options #2 and #3 are really considered good enough for many distributed systems, with #3 being possible to achieve with #2 (even without immediate support for #3 by DB).
I have a persistent actor which receives many messages. Fist message is CREATE (case class) and next messages are UPDATEs (case classes). So if it receives CREATE then it should not go into persistence to run recovery because the storage is empty for this actor. It's performance wasting from my perspective.
Is there any possibility to do not call recovery for particular input message (the first one which is CREATE), please?
A persistent actor will always have to hit the database, because there is no other way to know whether it having existed before - it could have been created in a previous instance of the application that was stopped or it could have been created on a different node in a cluster.
In general a good pattern for performance is to keep the actor in memory after it has been hit the first time, as that will allow as fast responses as possible. The most common way to do this is using Cluster Sharding (which you can read more about in the docs here: https://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/cluster-sharding.html?language=scala#cluster-sharding
I have never heard of anyone seeing the hit for an empty persistent actor as a performance problem and I'm not sure it is possible to solve that in a general way, so if you have such a problem and somehow can know the actor was never created before you can not do that with Akka Persistence but would have to build a special solution for that yourself.
The release notes of Infinispan 8 describes a new feature: Staggered remote gets.
These are described in the user guide:
11.4. Distribution Mode
The remote GET requests are staggered: we request the value from the primary owner, but if it doesn’t respond in a reasonable amount of time, we request the value from the backup owners as well.
This feature is documented for the Distribution Mode only.
Is this feature used for Replicated Mode as well?
Generally speaking: Is it safe to assume that replicated caches are a special case of distributed caches?
Generally speaking, yes it's true that Replicated Mode is a special case of Distributed Caches. The code is pretty much the same, with the exception of Replicated mode keeping an amount of replicas which is equal to the size of the cluster: each node will also be a full replica.
A Get operation will not issue a Remote Get when the current node is also an owning replica of the entry. So while it's true that a Remote Get would also be "staggered" if it the method was invoked, in practice when you have Replication you will never actually perform a Remote Get.
After going through H2 developer guide I still don't understand how can I find out what cluster node(s) was/were failing and which database needs to be recovered in the event of temporary network failure.
Let's consider the following scenario:
H2 cluster started with N active nodes (is actually it true that H2 can support N>2, i.e. more than 2 cluster nodes?)
(lots DB updates, reads...)
Network connection with one (or several) cluster nodes gets down and node becomes invisible to the rest of the cluster
(lots of DB updates, reads...)
Network link with previously disconnected node(s) restored
It is discovered that cluster node was probably missing (as far as I can see SELECT VALUE FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SETTINGS WHERE NAME='CLUSTER' starts responding with empty string if one node in cluster fails)
After this point it is unclear how to find out what nodes were failing?
Obviously, I can do some basic check like comparing DB size, but it is unreliable.
What is the recommended procedure to find out what node was missing in the cluster, esp. if query above responds with empty string?
Another question - why urlTarget doesn't support multiple parameters?
How I am supposed to use CreateCluster tool if multiple nodes in the cluster failed and I want to recover more than one?
Also I don't understand how CreateCluster works if I had to stop the cluster and I don't want to actually recover any nodes? What's not clear to me is what I need to pass to CreateCluster tool if I don't actually need to copy database.
That is partially right SELECT VALUE FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SETTINGS WHERE NAME='CLUSTER', will return an empty string when queried in standard mode.
However, you can get the list of servers by using Connection.getClientInfo() as well, but it is a two-step process. Paraphrased from h2database.com:
The list of properties returned by getClientInfo() includes a numServers property that returns the number of servers that are in the connection list. getClientInfo() also has properties server0..serverN, where N is the number of servers - 1. So to get the 2nd server from the list you use getClientInfo('server1').
Note: The serverX property only returns IP addresses and ports and not
hostnames.
And before you say simple replication, yes that is default operation, but you can do more advanced things that are outside the scope of your question in clustered H2.
Here's the quote for what you're talking about:
Clustering can only be used in the server mode (the embedded mode does not support clustering). The cluster can be re-created using the CreateCluster tool without stopping the remaining server. Applications that are still connected are automatically disconnected, however when appending ;AUTO_RECONNECT=TRUE, they will recover from that.
So yes if the cluster stops, auto_reconnect is not enabled, and you stick with the basic query, you are stuck and it is difficult to find information. While most people will tell you to look through the API and or manual, they haven't had to look through this one so, my sympathies.
I find it way more useful to track through the error codes, because you get a real good idea of what you can do when you see how the failure is planned for ... here you go.