Re: [jgroups-users] Flush + tcp Configuration
Questions/problems related to using JGroups <[email protected]> Tue, 7 Aug 2018 10:52:04 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.javagroups.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <mailman.6580.1533631937.1384.javagroups-users@lists.sourceforge.net> |
Hello,
Thanks for your answer. You are correct FLUSH isn't the culprit here,
tcp.bind_addr is. The original tcp.xml provided by jgroups doesn't use
tcp.bind_addr. I added bind_addr=127.0.0.1 to config and now the nodes
are finding eachother with or without FLUSH.
So the way it works is one has to set bind_addr to the same value as in
initial_hosts, either both pointing to the Loopback address or both
pointig to a real ip adress and not mixing between these two.
Best regards,
Thorsten Goetzke
Am 06.08.18 um 18:02 schrieb Questions/problems related to using JGroups:
>
>
> On 03/08/18 17:21, Questions/problems related to using JGroups wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am currently trying to get Jgroups running reliable using the tcp
>> protocol. Now here is a problem that i ran into:
>> Initially we used the tcp.xml provided by jgroups (assuming that that
>> config would be a good starting point) and added pbcast.FLUSH.
>> That actually didn't work. I ran the ReplicatedHasMapDemo on this
>> config using 2 clients on port 7800 and 7801 respectively. The title
>> for both clients stayed at 1 Server(s), so the Demo didn't work
>
>
> Using FLUSH or not should not make a diff in discovery; make sure that
> 'localhost' maps to 127.0.0.1 (as you set your bind address to it), and
> also verify jgroups.tcp.bind_port maps to 7800 and 7801, respectively.
>
> By just adding FLUSH, you probably had a mismatch between
> TCP.bind_addr/bind_port and TCPPING.initial_hosts
>
>
>> Than I wrote the config below and the Demo did work.
>> So i am currently somewhat lost. Is this behavior a bug, was the
>> configuration just wrong, is my new configuration any good...
>>
>> I tried to find some information online, apperently once apon a time a
>> tcp-flush.xml existed but it got removed(?) There seems to be some
>> information on javagroups-cvs but thats private(?)
>>
>> Our Usecase: A very small amount of servers publishing their state,
>> little traffic but reliablity (especially when servers are
>> unplugged/rebooted) is pretty important.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Thorsten Goetzke
>>
>> <config xmlns="urn:org:jgroups"
>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>> xsi:schemaLocation="urn:org:jgroups
>> http://www.jgroups.org/schema/jgroups.xsd">
>>
>> <TCP
>> bind_addr="127.0.0.1"
>> bind_port="${jgroups.tcp.bind_port}"
>> />
>>
>> <!-- it is recommended to add all the hosts on which members of the
>> cluster will be running to the configuration. -->
>> <TCPPING async_discovery="true"
>>
>> initial_hosts="${jgroups.tcpping.initial_hosts:localhost[7800],localhost[7801],localhost[7802]}"
>>
>> port_range="0"/>
>>
>> <MERGE3 />
>> <FD_SOCK/>
>> <FD/>
>> <VERIFY_SUSPECT/>
>> <BARRIER/>
>> <pbcast.NAKACK2 />
>> <UNICAST3 />
>> <pbcast.STABLE />
>> <pbcast.GMS />
>> <MFC/>
>> <FRAG2 />
>> <RSVP />
>> <pbcast.STATE_TRANSFER/>
>> <pbcast.FLUSH/>
>> </config>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> javagroups-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javagroups-users
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
javagroups-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javagroups-users