Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adjust documentation based on new load balancer support. #212

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 9, 2018

Conversation

dhly-etc
Copy link
Contributor

@dhly-etc dhly-etc commented Jul 5, 2018

The load balancer support is currently in devel in the main repo. It will be back-ported to 3.3 for sure, but has not been done yet. Do the docs here apply for 3.3? 3.2?

@ewoutp
Copy link
Contributor

ewoutp commented Jul 9, 2018

Can't spot any differences other than additional newlines.

coordinator, so the requests can be answered correctly without any additional
configuration. However, this incurs a small performance penalty due to the extra
request across the internal network.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ewoutp The paragraph above is the main change.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. We should also adjust the 2 paragraphs below, since they will no longer be needed, unless you want to avoid a small latency penalty.

Copy link
Contributor

@ewoutp ewoutp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need some text tweaks and then wait for the change to be available in a release,

coordinator, so the requests can be answered correctly without any additional
configuration. However, this incurs a small performance penalty due to the extra
request across the internal network.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. We should also adjust the 2 paragraphs below, since they will no longer be needed, unless you want to avoid a small latency penalty.


ArangoDB will transparently forward any mismatched requests to the correct
coordinator, so the requests can be answered correctly without any additional
configuration. However, this incurs a small performance penalty due to the extra
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggest to replace performance by latency

@ghost ghost assigned ewoutp Aug 9, 2018
@ewoutp ewoutp merged commit 88f3aec into master Aug 9, 2018
@ghost ghost removed the 2 - Working label Aug 9, 2018
@ewoutp ewoutp deleted the documentation/load-balancer-support branch August 9, 2018 06:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants