2015-12-02 16:52 GMT+03:00 Jordan Pittier :
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Dmitry Mescheryakov <
> dmescherya...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> My point is simple - lets increase our architecture scalability by 2-3
>> times by _maybe_ causing more errors for users during failover. The
>> fai
: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][FFE] Disabling HA for RPC queues in
RabbitMQ
Vova, Folks,
+1 to "set this option to false as an experimental feature"
Thanks,
Dims
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Vladimir Kuklin
wrote
Vova, Folks,
+1 to "set this option to false as an experimental feature"
Thanks,
Dims
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote:
> Dmitry
>
> Although, I am a big fan of disabling replication for RPC, I think it is too
> late to introduce it so late by default. I would suggest that
Dmitry
Although, I am a big fan of disabling replication for RPC, I think it is
too late to introduce it so late by default. I would suggest that we
control this part of OCF script with a specific parameter 'e.g. enable RPC
replication' and set it to 'true' by default. Then we can set this option
I would add on top of that Dmirty said that HA queues also increases
probability to have messages duplications under certain scenarios (besides of
that they are ~10x slower). Would Openstack services tolerate if RPC request
will be duplicated? What I've already learned - No. Also if
cluster_par
2015-12-02 13:11 GMT+03:00 Bogdan Dobrelya :
> On 01.12.2015 23:34, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> > Hello All!
> >
> > Well, side-effects (or any other effects) are quite obvious and
> > predictable - this will decrease availability of RPC queues a bit.
> > That's for sure.
>
> And consistency. Without
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Dmitry Mescheryakov <
dmescherya...@mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>
> My point is simple - lets increase our architecture scalability by 2-3
> times by _maybe_ causing more errors for users during failover. The
> failover time itself should not get worse (to be tested by m
2015-12-02 12:48 GMT+03:00 Sergii Golovatiuk :
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Peter Lemenkov
> wrote:
>
>> Hello All!
>>
>> Well, side-effects (or any other effects) are quite obvious and
>> predictable - this will decrease availability of RPC queues a bit.
>> That's for sure.
>>
>
On 01.12.2015 23:34, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Well, side-effects (or any other effects) are quite obvious and
> predictable - this will decrease availability of RPC queues a bit.
> That's for sure.
And consistency. Without messages and queues being synced between all of
the rabbit_h
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Well, side-effects (or any other effects) are quite obvious and
> predictable - this will decrease availability of RPC queues a bit.
> That's for sure.
>
Imagine the case when user creates VM instance, and some nova me
Hello All!
Well, side-effects (or any other effects) are quite obvious and
predictable - this will decrease availability of RPC queues a bit.
That's for sure.
However, Dmitry's guess is that the overall messaging backplane
stability increase (RabitMQ won't fail too often in some cases) would
comp
Hi,
-1 for FFE for disabling HA for RPC queue as we do not know all side
effects in HA scenarios.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Dmitry Mescheryakov <
dmescherya...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I would like to request feature freeze exception for disabling HA for RPC
> queues in RabbitMQ [
Folks,
I would like to request feature freeze exception for disabling HA for RPC
queues in RabbitMQ [1].
As I already wrote in another thread [2], I've conducted tests which
clearly show benefit we will get from that change. The change itself is a
very small patch [3]. The only thing which I want
13 matches
Mail list logo
