Dmitry, additional BLT related logging is already added. I hope it will help users to understand BLT better.
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > Completely support the decision to move any BLT behavior changes to 2.6. > However, in 2.5 we need to add usability log messages, which I believe we > already have. > > D. > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Igniters, >> >> I believe BLT is serious usability problem but rush isn't good idea >> because can lead to new bugs. As release manager I think that we >> should move BLT fix to Apache Ignite 2.6 release and focus on issues >> included to the AI 2.5 release scope. >> I also want inform you that code freeze is planned for Friday, May 11. >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi Dmitriy, >> > >> > As far as I understand manual activation will not be required for >> in-memory >> > mode (same for persistence). Change means we will change node state from >> > 'joined-inactive' to 'joined-active' according to that user defined in >> > policy (cluster grow policy). >> > >> > Default will be allow to rebalance data to joined node, probably, with >> some >> > delay. This detail will be defenetely discussed at dev list before >> > implementation. >> > >> > Pros: Persistent users will not be facing with disabled rebalancing in >> case >> > of node left - (BL)AT will be changed automatically. This also be handled >> > by cluster shrink policy for both in-memory and durable cases. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > >> > сб, 28 апр. 2018 г. в 21:10, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: >> > >> >> Can someone explain what is the before and after effect for this change >> >> from the usability standpoint. If we are changing BLT for the in-memory >> >> mode, which is the default, then we must think through all the usability >> >> consequences ahead of time. Otherwise, the perception will be that the >> >> product stopped working because someone did not know to activate the >> >> cluster. >> >> >> >> D. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I'm backing up Vladimir's proposal to fix the behavior in 2.5 if it's >> not >> >> > time-consuming. To give you a bit more context on the subj, here is >> why >> >> we >> >> > should have the fix to be delivered in 2.5: >> >> > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Problems- >> >> > with-persistence-and-partitioned-cache-in-2-4-0-td21325.html >> >> > >> >> > Frankly, it's not the first time I see similar complaints from those >> who >> >> > are on 2.4. >> >> > >> >> > Alex G., Vovan, how hard is it to fix this? >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Denis >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < >> voze...@gridgain.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Yakov, >> >> > > >> >> > > Messages would help users understand what is wrong earlier, but will >> >> not >> >> > > protect them from additional maintenance which is required in AI 2.4 >> >> and >> >> > is >> >> > > supposed to be removed in next AI releases. >> >> > > Please note that in IEP-4 topic I proposed alternative solution - >> >> release >> >> > > AI 2.5 now, but then release AI 2.6 as soon as BLT is fixed. I.e. it >> >> > would >> >> > > be emergency release. >> >> > > >> >> > > Both approaches works for me, the main goal is to deliver original >> >> > defaults >> >> > > ASAP. However, approach with a single release looks better to me >> >> because >> >> > it >> >> > > will minimize number of migrations for users. >> >> > > >> >> > > Vladimir. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org >> > >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > > Guys, how about we release 2.5 in the nearest future after adding >> >> > proper >> >> > > > usability log messages that will explain user what to do and also >> >> > output >> >> > > > link to readme.io with the first BLT related message during node >> >> > uptime. >> >> > > > This should not take much time and we can use the same messages >> when >> >> we >> >> > > > have (BL)AT modes in 2.6. I think that adding messages makes sense >> >> and >> >> > > > should be clear for users which is not the case for 2.4. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > --Yakov >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
