1) Is it really desired to keep the site list in client configuration? It has always seemed to me great that I can provide only single hotrod server address to the client and it will figure out all the other nodes. I can imagine a configuration with one or few well-known nodes (possibly with capacity factor 0), and the heavy lifting to be done by an elastic cluster. Especially in AWS or GCE like environments it simplifies the configuration. The same could hold for the backup sites, though I understand that this has two downsides: a) If x-site interface is different from the interface accessible by clients, we need a mechanism to publish the external-host:external-port information b) if this information is per-client, it's easy to set up the order of backup sites (according to geographical location, to keep the cluster as close as possible). If that's server based, it may not be possible to declare that accurately. 2) There should be a way to tell the clients that the original site is back online, without bringing down the backup site. However, that puts us back to point 1b) - how should the client know that the another online site is actually closer, if it does not have it on the list. Maybe, having an optional list that would declare the priority, with site names, would be beneficial (client would have foo.bar.sites=BRQ,LON,SFO but wouldn't have to care about IP addresses). Radim On 09/07/2015 06:26 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote: -- Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com&gt; JBoss Performance Team

On 09/09/2015 04:00 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote: OK, I've eventually convinced myself that it's not that bad idea to keep the addresses there. The mechanism of updating site list on the client can be out of scope for Infinispan. Not that it would matter, but [1] says that its configured as 'external-host' [1] https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/server/integration/e... You need to declare priority of sites to which the client should connect. If we keep the current configuration, the main site is obvious, but to which sites should it connect when the site BRQ fails, LON or SFO? -1 That's what I meant by 'without bringing down the backup site'. You can have active-active setup with one set of clients in the main site and another set of clients connected to the backup site (when both sites are online). When one site fails, the clients will be transferred to the backup site (from their POV), so all clients would connect to single site. But when you bring the failed site back online, you don't want to disrupt the other set of clients, and ping pong them between the sites - you want to use both. Radim -- Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com&gt; JBoss Performance Team