-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The term for "maintenance" nodes #7148
Comments
It sounds like the feature in #6349 is a way of telling the coordinator to move all data off a particular historical. "Decommission" seems to be the most popular word to use to describe that kind of operation in other systems I checked just now. It also strikes me as pretty intuitive. So I'd suggest that.
|
@gianm thanks for the analysis and providing the data. Now I'm in favor of "decommission". |
"Decommission" sounds good to me. |
I don't have strong opinions here, "draining" and "decommission" both do sound a bit more intuitive than "maintenance". "draining" seems more popular with orchestration things like mesos, kubernetes, docker swarm, etc, but I think either are appropriate here, so count this as a vote for changing to one or the other. |
Actually.. 👍 for "decommission" because it seems more appropriate terminology for this application level function, and we are closer to kafka/cassandra/hadoop than mesos/kubernetes/etc so it seems more consistent. |
I'd be interested in making/using a layer on top of this feature where you send an API request to the historical itself and it adds itself to the coordinator's decommission list. (See @clintropolis at #6349 (comment).) I think "decommission" goes well with this potential feature, especially since one could include an "exit when empty" flag on the API. A decommissioning that ends with exiting feels fitting. |
It sounds like people generally like "decommission". Since this is a 0.14.0 blocker we'd want to make this change soon (so we can keep progressing towards a release candidate). Is anyone interested in implementing this change? |
I can pick this up this afternoon if no one else claims it. |
The "maintenance" mode of historical nodes introduced in #6349 confused me recently so raise this issue with
0.14.0
milestone while it's not too late to change the name relatively easily.I like @glasser's suggestion "draining", I think it reflects the essence of the mode more clearly than "maintenance".
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: