|
|
|
|
|
by mgachka
1518 days ago
|
|
Hi, It's a good read.
I have a few questions/comments: - given the description of the Rumor-mongering approach vs the Anti-entropy approach, it looks like the Anti-entropy approach: -- has an important overhead in terms of network/messages sent (since nodes are always chatting even when there are no changes in the cluster). -- is slower to propagate a change of cluster state to all the nodes. Does it mean that in case of a node failures/shutdown, the cluster will be instable for longer (since dead nodes will receive queries)? - the article mention a "seed node" but doesn't define what this is. - on a dynamic quickwit setup (that often downscales/upscales depending on the load), it seems that the size of the metadata in each node will keep increasing since the state of the dead nodes will be kept, unless the same node_unique_id can be reused after a downscale/upscale (but I don't know enough how kube works to see if it's the case). |
|
We stopped using SWIM because it is too hard to get right, and because scuttlebutt allows all nodes to expose a bunch of meta-information about themselves.
It took a lot of time and effort to Hashicorp to patch memberlist into what it is today.