I'm afraid there hasn't yet been any progress beyond some email discussions.

This work will happen in the "multinode" branch:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/vcap-services-base/tree/multinode . Feel
free to dig in and submit your code to reviews.cloudfoundry.org.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:20 AM, wrote:

Thanks all for bringing this up. Taking vcap services in this direction is
crucial, imho.
Has there been any more work on this front? Where or how can I help to
move things forward?

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:03:20 AM UTC+3, yssk22 wrote:

Thanks for sharing your plan, which is very similar to our plan #B

I'd like to make some discussions for more details.
For service that are clustered in a master-slave organization,
In this case, there would be an limitation of switching the master
server when the original master is down. Is it right? or do you have
any 'recovery' mechanism to be implemented?
If master fails and it is not recovered by vcap, we should provide
notifications and recovery operation feature in vmc.
# a command like 'vmc cluster-service instance1 instance2 instance3 --
master instance0' might be required..
But for services in which (for example) all nodes are peers, this
seed/child protocol

In this case, applications should be able to receive notifications not
to use the dead nodes when some of instances are down... The current
service configuration mechanism (using env vars) would be an potential
issues for this implementation.
After provisioning is complete, the nodes can interact with each
other in whatever way they way.
I agree with this idea but applications would like to control when the
provisioned nodes join the cluster because there would be a
performance issue in production services.
On 6月20日, 午前3:24, Nicholas Kushmerick wrote:
We are actually in the design phase of doing this as well. In the
medium/long term we certainly don't want to duplicate effort, but in the
short term it would be great for multiple approaches to help us reach
consensus on the best approach. Here's an overview of our plan:

- A Cloud Foundry Service Gateway would be configured to provision a
service instance across N Service Nodes
- N is just a parameter, as far as the gateway is concerned it can be
any value, though only some values might make sense for specific services
- for review, the provisioning process today (ie, N=1) works like this:
- Gateway selects one Node using a simple load balancing algorithm
- Gateway forwards provisioning request to the selected Node
- Node receives the request and performs whatever operations are
appropriate for the service (eg for a database: CREATE DATABASE
USER bar; etc)
- Gateway receives back from Node the instances credentials (host,
port, username, password, etc -- whatever makes sense for the service)
- The proposed protocol for supporting N > 1 is as follows:
- Gateway selects N best Nodes according to the same
- Gateway forwards provisioning request to one 'seed' Node, chosen
arbitrarily from the selected nodes
- 'Seed' Node receives the request and performs whatever
are appropriate
- Gateway receives back from 'seed' node the instance's
- Gateway forwards provisioning request to the other N-1 "child"
Nodes, along with the credentials for the 'seed' node
- Child nodes perform whatever operations are appropriate, including
remembering/registering/etc the seed node
- Gateway receives back from the child nodes the instance
- Gateway bundles all N sets of credentials together to supply to the
user's app, which will know what to do with them all

For service that are clustered in a master-slave organization, this
instance on the seed node naturally becomes the master. But for services
in which (for example) all nodes are peers, this seed/child protocol is
just a way for the instances to discover each other during the
process. After provisioning is complete, the nodes can interact with each
other in whatever way they way.

We plan to build this into the services base library (
to make life easy for
any service that wants to use this capability.

I'd certainly be interested in hearing more about your plans/ideas.

-- Nick

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:15 AM, yssk22 wrote:
I'm planning to implement cluster version of some services gateway/
node (especially the first target would be mongodb). Our basic
requirements are:
A. replica set (in mongodb's term) support via plan config
B. support add/delete instances for cluster instance.
As for these requirements, does dev team have any direction for
I suppose following two types of topologies.
A. gateway <-> node <-> cluster manager <--> [instance, instance,
instance, ...]
B. gateway <-> node <-> [instance, instance, ...]
node <-> [instance, instance, ...]
node <-> [instance, instance, ...]
As for A, the cluster management is out of scope for vcap-serviece
implementation, just it should proxy provisioning request to outside
CF. This case would be easy to be applied for some management API
friendly products (I think Couchbase would be the good example). But
the infrastructure deployment (Bosh or something) would be more
difficult to adopt each products.
As for B, the cluster management should be done inside vcap-service
implementation so that cloud controller database (and node local
sqlite3 db) should have cluster info and keep the cluster health and
availabilities. Gateway and node implementation would be more complex
but infrastructure deployment would be the same as the current.
How do you guys think about provisioning the cluster version of
service instances?

phone + *·* skype nicholaskushmerick

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 5 of 5 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupvcap-dev @
postedJun 19, '12 at 3:16p
activeAug 2, '12 at 4:44p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase