On 2024/02/27 12:07:24 yang yijun wrote: > Hi everyone,I have an optimization proposal. > > [improve][broker]PIP-340 Optimization of Probe Implementation for Automatic > Failover > > PIP-340:https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22133 > > Thank you for your help. >
Thanks, Yang. Interesting proposal. Some thoughts: There might be alternative ways to solve the requirements. It's better to focus initially on solving the problem and use case. There has been some changes in Pulsar PIP process. We have a PIP template https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/pip/TEMPLATE.md for capturing the proposal in a markdown file. However, that could also happen later in the process, after the initial mailing list discussion. Your proposal seems to make sense a lot of sense, but the naming is perhaps not optimal. When looking at the changes, this looks like an active/passive status for a cluster and having that could make it more flexible. There might be other reasons than "health" to mark a cluster passive. Let's say when there's a need to do maintenance where it is desirable that clients move to the other cluster. One of the challenges is making this proposal consistent with the Blue-Green deployment feature. PIP-188 [1] (please note that this PIP was filed before we switched to use markdown files for capturing PIPs). Would there be a way to make the requirements part of the Blue-Green deployment feature or make it more consistent with it? Does that make sense? -Lari 1 - https://lists.apache.org/thread/kk8lbc92mtgt0hw3tl7dfw7fmpl4jwyq
