8 Replies Latest reply on May 26, 2014 10:56 AM by Olivier Van Dam

    Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior

    Olivier Van Dam Newbie

      I'd like to get the community's input regarding some behavior I have noticed:

       

      Time T-1:

      - Server Group: SG1

      - Server Nodes SN1 & SN2, part of SG1

      - Application A1 assigned to SG1 and enabled, running on SN1 & SN2

       

      Time T:

      - remove the Server Group SG1

      -> SN1 & SN2 are still running, the application is accessible (restart should not occur as they are missing the Server Group info from now on)

       

      Time T+1:

      - I can create a new Server Group SG1 (same name as the one present before), but updating it fails (at least for some types of updates, like system properties, deployment assignment)

      - "Problem" is resolved if I update the Server Nodes to assign them to a new group SGTemp (without restarting, so change not active yet).

       

      I realize the approach is a bit messy, but I was looking for deployment approaches, and searching for various ways to keep system availability.

       

      One of the request I got from my team was that any script provided should be able to be rerun as is, without tweaking, while keeping the high availability.

       

      My expectations in regard to the scenario presented above was an outcome out of the 2 following:

      - server nodes would be removed with the removal of the related server group

      - server nodes would be "maintained" till restart; till then I could recreate the server group without affecting the nodes (possibly I'd have to update the nodes with the Server Group info, although name was the same)

       

      I'd like to know mostly if the experience I've had is intended or not, and if not what would be the expected behavior so I can take it into account.

       

      product-name=EAP

      product-version=6.2.1.GA

      release-codename=Janus

      release-version=7.3.1.Final-redhat-3

       

      Thanks in advance.

        • 1. Re: Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior
          Emanuel Muckenhuber Master

          Hmm, in general you should not be able to remove a server-group if there are still servers assigned to it. If this is the case it's a bug.

           

          Can you describe your deployment use cases you are looking for in more detail? We do have something called rollout plans, where you can deploy a deployment to multiple server-groups.

          • 2. Re: Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior
            jason.marley Newbie

            You may consider doing rolling deployments leveraging HTTPD and modcluster to ensure fail over; assuming this is run in domain mode, you could have to at least have each domain replicated. I don;'t see why you wouldn't be able to do this in standalone either, just would a bit more to manage.

            • 3. Re: Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior
              Olivier Van Dam Newbie

              See in attachment some of the scenarios I've been considering to manage the releases (images didn't pass so well when inserted).

               

              Benefit of approach 2B is to not have to manage an application version (read name in container), or alter its assignation to a server group.

               

              Would be happy to hear your views on the recommended approaches, definitely.

               

              As mentioned earlier, another request I got was for the deployment script to be "rerunnable" so that if it was to fail during run, you could just rerun it without having to dig too much. I haven't checked yet how this impacts the viability of each approach currently considered.

              • 4. Re: Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior
                Olivier Van Dam Newbie

                Thanks for the note on server-group removal,

                I'll reprocude and enter it as bug unless I find some reference by then explaining the logic of what I've seen.

                 

                I've added the deployment options I'm currently considering  (separate reply to the main thread), could you let me know your thoughts or indicate some reference to the rollout plans?

                 

                Thanks in advance.

                • 5. Re: Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior
                  Emanuel Muckenhuber Master

                  The problem i see with those scenarios is that it seem to contain mandatory? configuration updates, which may result that you have to restart servers. Where just replacing a deployment would not require that. Also if you update a configuration in a profile those changes would get pushed to all servers referencing that profile as part of the server group. So this could potentially affect currently deployed applications.

                   

                  Basically rollout plans define the way deployments (or operations) are pushed to servers and groups. For example when updating a deployment you can say that this should be rolled out in sequence to server-group-one, after this is complete move on to server-group-two. It also allows you to define whether those deployments should pushed concurrently within a server group or not. Here is a link to the WildFly documentation with a simple example: The native management API - WildFly 8 - Project Documentation Editor


                  Additionally we support "composite" operations, where you could potentially send configuration updates and the deployment as a single operation. However this would just leave servers in a restart-required state, if configuration changes could not be applied to the runtime directly.

                  1 of 1 people found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior
                    Olivier Van Dam Newbie

                    Thanks, indeed it is what I was looking for.

                     

                    From your comment it seems that the rollout-plan approach allows for changes done at profile and server group level to impact the related servers one at a time, is that correct?

                    If indeed this works like that, I'm not sure I fully grasp how to manage any kind of failure properly, short of a full rollback.

                     

                    Regarding the composite operations, I had tried out the batch approach during some of my tryouts, but ended with failures when the batch covered the whole update process.

                    I intended to check further, attempting to identify which specific operation shouldn't be included in the batch, but haven't delved back into that yet.

                    Currently I'd guess the upload of the application into the JBoss container would be a likely culprit, but haven't tested this assumption yet.

                    • 7. Re: Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior
                      Olivier Van Dam Newbie

                      Further investigation points more to something related to the scripting interface (scripts in jython), and how the cli.cmd() method works.

                      Will update this thread once I confirm this.

                      • 8. Re: Server group and Server node relation - removal - expected behavior
                        Olivier Van Dam Newbie

                        After reviewing the rollout-plan features, it does not appear I can use it in my current context for the following reasons:

                        - need to validate deployment on a subset of the nodes (server group or server node) before pushing it completely

                        - using the rollout-plan would require a batch approach, while this means no try / catch or if / else logic can be implemented as far as I've seen

                          Indeed in the current scripts I've setup, there is some additional logic around the requests, so that if the configuration file I receive indicates an "add" operation, the deployment script will first check if the element is already present and remove it if need be.

                          Similarly an  "update" operation will test for the element existence and add it if necessary. Otherwise, the deployment script will iterate through the parameters to be updated and use the write-attribute method if available.

                          Implementing such logic directly in CLI would not be possible in a batch structure from what I've seen

                         

                        I do take note of your comment and agree that profile changes can be dangerous (although hopefully not very common beyond the original application setup), so will pay particular attention to it.

                         

                        Regarding the possible need to restart the nodes, I intend to check the server-state attribute to identify if it is needed or not