Not sure that "user fallback" is the right definition, it is not new behaviour in comparison with legacy implementation.
Our synchronous deployment provides guaranties for a deployment initiator to be able to start work with service immediately after deployment finished successfully. For not the deployment initiator we can't provide such guarantees now, because of unknown deployment result and possibly fail. In this case, a reasonable timeout might be an acceptable solution. We can improve guaranties in future releases, but there is an open question: - how long taking of proxy should wait? - deployment of "heavy" service may take a while On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 6:19 PM Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What should be the user fallback in this case? Retry infinitely? Is there a > way to wait for the proper deployment? > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 12:41, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > I’ll take a look at the end of the week. > > > > There is one more use-case: > > * if you initiate deployment from node A, but getting proxy on node B > > (which isn’t deployment initiator) to call service on node A - it may fail > > with "service not found", this is expected behaviour because we didn't > > provide such guarantees. > > > > API of getting proxy with timeout should be used in this case: > > T serviceProxy(String name, Class<? super T> svcItf, boolean sticky, long > > timeout) > > > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 12:11, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > Well, this is exactly the case. The service is deployed from node A, the > > > proxy is created on node B, and "service not found" exception gets thrown > > > to a user anyway. Perhaps, the retry happens too fast? > > > > > > Created a ticket [1]. > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12490 > > > > > > пн, 23 дек. 2019 г. в 22:08, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Hi, Alexey > > > > > > > > Please attach a reproducer to the ticket. > > > > > > > > As far as I remember we have the following behaviour for the proxies: > > > > > > > > Let's assume you have deployed service from node A, then: > > > > * if you invoke service locally from node A - it is guaranteed to > > > > service to be deployed and ready to work > > > > * if you take a proxy from node A to remote node B right after deploy > > > > - there is might be a race between disco-spi (a message which releases > > > > deployed service) and comm-spi (remote call works via Compute over > > > > comm-spi), but it shouldn't affect end-users because the failed > > > > request will be retried in this case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 6:55 PM Alexey Goncharuk > > > > <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I've rechecked, the new service processor is being used. I'll > > > file a > > > > > bug shortly. > > > > > > > > > > пн, 23 дек. 2019 г. в 17:33, Николай Ижиков <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > Alexey, are you sure, you are testing new service framework? > > > > > > > > > > > > Is yes - you definitely should file a bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 23 дек. 2019 г., в 17:02, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > > > > > написал(а): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a question based on one of my recent tests debugging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The test is related to Ignite services. I noticed that sometimes > > a > > > > proxy > > > > > > > invocation of a newly deployed service fails because the service > > > > cannot > > > > > > be > > > > > > > found. I managed to reduce the test to a simple "start two nodes, > > > > deploy > > > > > > a > > > > > > > service, create a proxy, invoke the proxy" scenario. The proxy > > > > invocation > > > > > > > fails in about ~80% of runs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I remember, the new discovery-based service deployment > > > was > > > > > > > supposed to be synchronous, so not only non-proxy service > > instances > > > > > > should > > > > > > > work, but the proxies as well. Was my understanding correct? > > > Should I > > > > > > file > > > > > > > a bug for the observed behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > -- Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
