I am 100% sure, cause  "*telnet  <public-ip>  11211*"  works just perfect.

Igor

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Igor,
>
> Are you sure these connections are not blocked by firewall? If you provide
> addresses explicitly in static IP finder, then it doesn't matter what is
> published in shared IP finder. Is it possible that public addresses are
> actually published and connectivity issue is caused by something else?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Igor Rudyak <irud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Val,
> >
> > Regarding resolver it makes sense.
> >
> > Actually as of now, Option 2 doesn't work to connect Ignite clients to
> > cluster using private-to-public IPs mapping. It just falls into infinite
> > connection loop and periodically reports something like this:
> >
> > *[14:42:15] Failed to connect to any address from IP finder (will retry
> to
> > join topology every 2 secs): [/0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1%1:47500, /127.0.0.1:47500
> > <http://127.0.0.1:47500>, /<server-1-private-ip>:47500,
> > /<server-2-private-ip>:47500, /<server-3-private-ip>:47500]*
> >
> > Even if I manually specify all public IPs for discovery, like this:
> >
> > *<bean class="org.apache.ignite.spi.discovery.tcp.TcpDiscoverySpi">*
> > * <property name="ipFinder">*
> > * <bean
> > class="org.apache.ignite.spi.discovery.tcp.ipfinder.multicast.
> > TcpDiscoveryMulticastIpFinder">*
> > * <property name="addresses">*
> > * <list>*
> > * <value><server-1-public-ip></value>*
> > * <value><server-2-public-ip></value>*
> > * <value><server-3-public-ip></value>*
> > * </list>*
> > * </property>*
> > * </bean>*
> > * </property>*
> > *</bean>*
> >
> > It still can't connect to cluster and just periodically reports the same
> > error.
> >
> > Does actually cluster membership protocol support the case when node
> > available through multiple IP addresses and treats <ip-address-1>,
> > <ip-address-2> and etc. as just different IPs corresponding to the same
> > node?
> >
> >
> > Igor
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Igor,
> > >
> > > It depends on how address resolver works. But I agree, in general case
> > it's
> > > possible that a node can only resolve public address for itself. In
> such
> > > scenario we must publish public addresses in IP finder.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Igor Rudyak <irud...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Option 2 also will not work for IaaS environments, where node can
> > > > dynamically join or leave cluster.
> > > >
> > > > Igor
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 26, 2017 12:12 PM, "Valentin Kulichenko" <
> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yakov,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nodes that join outside of the network (usually these are clients)
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > know public addresses to connect. To make it work either of these
> > must
> > > > > happen:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Server nodes publish their public addresses in IP finder so that
> > > > clients
> > > > > can use them to connect.
> > > > > 2. Client nodes use address resolver to map published internal
> > > addresses
> > > > to
> > > > > public addresses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both will work, but frankly I like option 1 more. First of all,
> it's
> > > just
> > > > > more intuitive that IP finder contains all possible addresses that
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > used to join. Second of all, option 2 introduces requirement to
> have
> > > > > address resolver for server addresses configured on client nodes -
> > this
> > > > is
> > > > > not very good from usability standpoint.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhda...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Guys, I don't get the point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Why addresses processed by address resolver should appear in
> > > shared
> > > > > > finder? In my understanding finders contain only internal IPs
> which
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be processed by a resolver.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. This one is very critical. Nikolay and Anton, how can I review
> > the
> > > > > > changes?! Please update the ticket with PR or commit hash.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to