Why would this be better than having the same five nodes all sharing the
workload?
I can say why it’s worse: in the event of a failure, there’s more data to copy
which means the system would take longer to rebalance and therefore the window
where you have no redundancy is larger.
The closest t
Hello!
I think you could use a cache node filter to do that, however, since I'm
not aware that anybody ever did this, you can run into unexpected issues.
If you have persistence, you can easily do this by adding additional node
into baseline topology once one of regular nodes go away. Note that i
We have 4 nodes (with attribute data-node) which are used for data storage.
What we want is to have an additional node (with attribute data-node) and do
not use it until one of the node (among the 4 nodes) goes down.
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
I’m not clear what that means? They’re part of the cluster but don’t store data
or provide compute services? At what point would they leap into action? Maybe
if you could describe what problem you’re trying to solve we could provide a
more Ignite-y way to solve it.
Regards,
Stephen
> On 6 Dec
Can we put some nodes on standby in Ignite?
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
