Improve failure mode, add multiple DCs #1273
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
gitbuda
reviewed
Apr 30, 2025
Comment on lines
632
to
633
| The architecture we currently use allows us to deploy coordinators in 3 data centers and hence tolerate a failure of the whole data center. Data instances can be freely | ||
| distributed in any way you want between data centers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would extend this with some notes on the expected system requirements, e.g., the latency should be under N ms 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's not necessary. Failover will be slower but slower network IMO still doesn't disqualify the architecture.
as51340
added
priority: low (improvements)
antejavor
approved these changes
May 20, 2025
Comment on lines
+630
to
+634
| ## Data center failure | ||
|
|
||
| The architecture we currently use allows us to deploy coordinators in 3 data centers and hence tolerate a failure of the whole data center. Data instances can be freely | ||
| distributed in any way you want between data centers. The failover time will be slighlty increased due to the network communication needed. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ## Data center failure | |
| The architecture we currently use allows us to deploy coordinators in 3 data centers and hence tolerate a failure of the whole data center. Data instances can be freely | |
| distributed in any way you want between data centers. The failover time will be slighlty increased due to the network communication needed. | |
| ## Data center failure | |
| The architecture we currently use allows us to deploy coordinators in 3 data centers and hence tolerate a failure of the whole data center. Data instances can be freely | |
| distributed in any way you want between data centers. The failover time will be slightly increased due to the need for network communication. | |
antejavor
requested changes
May 20, 2025
Feel free to merge the suggestion. The pr should get into main because it's not connected to anything special in memgraph 3-3 |
|
Cool @as51340, this is part of milestone 3.3, hence the comment. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Release note
Documented types of failures tolerated with our current model of highly-available cluster. Documented possible architecture when multiple data centers are used.
Related product PRs
Checklist:
bugfixorfeaturelabel, based on the product PR type you're documenting