To be Reviewed By: February 22nd, 2022
Authors: Mario Kevo
Status: Draft | Discussion | Active | Dropped | Superseded
Superseded by: N/A
Related: N/A
Problem
Geode has an attribute named VisibleNodes which is described like:
/** * The current number of nodes in this distributed system visible to this member. */ int getVisibleNodes();
This is wrong as it represents it like it is described in DistributionStats :
final String nodesDesc = "The current number of nodes in this distributed system.";
For some users, it has “wrong” values, as it reflects the current number of nodes in the distributed member(including this member). The user wants to see a new metric that will count all members(both locators and servers) in the system visible to one of the members.
The geode ticket is GEODE-9101. There is already the PR with the solution, but the suggestion is to add a new attribute.
Anti-Goals
What is outside the scope of what the proposal is trying to solve?
Solution
Adding a new attribute to the MemberMXBean that will return a count of other members(both locators and servers) in the cluster.
Changes and Additions to Public Interfaces
None
Performance Impact
None
Backwards Compatibility and Upgrade Path
No upgrade or backwards compatibility issues.
Prior Art
What would be the alternatives to the proposed solution? What would happen if we don’t solve the problem? Why should this proposal be preferred?
FAQ
Answers to questions you’ve commonly been asked after requesting comments for this proposal.
Errata
What are minor adjustments that had to be made to the proposal since it was approved?
3 Comments
Bill Burcham
I am for fixing the bug (GEODE-9101) instead of adding a new attribute.
Mario Kevo
I agree with you.
There is already PR #6225 with that solution. Please add your review on that.
BR,
Mario
Kirk Lund
Please see GEODE-10358 and the test I wrote in PR #7765 to understand why removing:
if (theId.getVmKind() != ClusterDistributionManager.LOCATOR_DM_TYPE) {
will result in redefining the
DistributionStats
nodes
stat which is incorrect.I'm going to -1 this PR and the RFC. Thank you, Kirk