Skip to content

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

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Sep 25, 2024

Conversation

tselmegbaasan
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@priyolahiri
Copy link

Would customers be familiar with the term "rafted" and what it actually means?

@tselmegbaasan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@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...

Copy link
Collaborator

@Frannie-Ludmilla Frannie-Ludmilla left a 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.

Copy link
Collaborator

@NataliaIvakina NataliaIvakina left a 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

@tselmegbaasan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@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.

@priyolahiri
Copy link

LGTM

Copy link
Collaborator

@NataliaIvakina NataliaIvakina left a 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

@neo-technology-commit-status-publisher
Copy link
Collaborator

neo-technology-commit-status-publisher commented Sep 25, 2024

Thanks for the documentation updates.

The preview documentation has now been torn down - reopening this PR will republish it.

@tselmegbaasan tselmegbaasan merged commit 4a8a14c into neo4j:dev Sep 25, 2024
8 checks passed
@tselmegbaasan tselmegbaasan deleted the add-status-check-docs branch September 25, 2024 09:23
renetapopova pushed a commit to renetapopova/docs-operations that referenced this pull request Sep 26, 2024
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.
renetapopova added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 26, 2024
Cherry-picked #1823 and #1827

---------

Co-authored-by: Tselmeg Baasan <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: NataliaIvakina <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants