Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 21, 2024. It is now read-only.

Frame Migration #51

Closed
tgruben opened this issue Feb 19, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

Frame Migration #51

tgruben opened this issue Feb 19, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@tgruben
Copy link
Member

tgruben commented Feb 19, 2016

Need some process to move a fragment to a new node. Worse case an offline process, ideally completely online without noticeable service interruption

@benbjohnson
Copy link
Contributor

Is this for expanding the cluster?

@tgruben
Copy link
Member Author

tgruben commented Feb 20, 2016

Yes

-Todd

On Feb 19, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Ben Johnson notifications@github.com wrote:

Is this for expanding the cluster?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@benbjohnson
Copy link
Contributor

@tgruben I was trying to implement this in-process but it gets ugly really fast. The server essential needs two configurations to try to manage and then it has to cut over.

I'm looking at doing a much simpler solution where we spin up a separate cluster and do a restore into the new cluster from the old one. Nodes in the new cluster, btw, can live on the same machine but just have different ports. Although since you're on AWS it probably makes the most sense to create a cluster with new machines, restore to that cluster, switch over the load balancer, and then remove the old machines.

The benefits of this approach are:

  • the original cluster is operational during the whole process
  • we can validate that the new cluster is working properly before cutting over
  • if an error occurs halfway through then we don't need to try to clean up

We'll need to be able to have the input stream write to the old and new clusters though.

@tgruben @travisturner how does that sound?

@benbjohnson
Copy link
Contributor

Closed via #62.

tgruben pushed a commit to tgruben/pilosa that referenced this issue Sep 4, 2019
Remove link to developer agreement since we don't have a CLA for this project
jaffee pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2020
Add "having" support to GroupBy() queries
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants