-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
Docs for the rafted status check procedure. #1823
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
Docs for the rafted status check procedure. #1823
Conversation
Would customers be familiar with the term "rafted" and what it actually means? |
@priyolahiri That's a good question. I'll ask the team for input. I definitely think that removing the reference to raft can simplify for the user if they only intend to use the status check for checking availability. But there's also the leader information, and we might extend the procedure with other raft information in the future. So the common denominator for the displayed information is raft... But it might be too detailed... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the clustering docs, there is no reference to Raft 😮 Not even in the glossary. I think that since it's important to mention it in this section, we might as well add a Trello Card for filling this gap.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tselmegbaasan, hi! Thank you for the page. I think this information will be super useful. However, I have several concerns. First, because of using completely new terms such as 'rafted check' and 'rafted databases'. Even 'raft group' is not very familiar to users. I think we mention the Raft protocol only in the page https://neo4j.com/docs/operations-manual/current/clustering/introduction/#clustering-primary-mode
@priyolahiri @NataliaIvakina @Frannie-Ludmilla @nick-giles-neo Thanks all for the review. Since almost all of you pointed out that the term "raft" is too novel for the user, I've changed all occurrences of "raft" to "cluster". Also, I don't refer to entries either, I've simplified it to "transactions" because that's probably the only thing the user cares about. |
LGTM |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tselmegbaasan, hi! I think everything looks good. I suggested some editorial and formatting related changes. Please, take a look
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Thanks for the documentation updates. The preview documentation has now been torn down - reopening this PR will republish it. |
As part of the 2DC support, we needed to make the rafted status check procedure public. And therefore, we also need to add a public documentation.
Cherry-picked #1823 and #1827 --------- Co-authored-by: Tselmeg Baasan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
As part of the 2DC support, we needed to make the rafted status check procedure public. And therefore, we also need to add a public documentation. I've kept it quite simple. But it may be too technical in some parts, let me know.
P.S It's required to be part of the 5.24 release.