Skip to content

docs: clarify same-city dual-site deployment considerations#10429

Open
Adi-Beker wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom
Adi-Beker:docs-dual-site-deployment
Open

docs: clarify same-city dual-site deployment considerations#10429
Adi-Beker wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom
Adi-Beker:docs-dual-site-deployment

Conversation

@Adi-Beker

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes

Fixes #10427

Brief Description

This PR adds a short clarification to docs/en/Deployment.md about same-city dual-site deployment considerations.

The added note highlights failure-domain planning, quorum and failover assumptions, NameServer reachability, replicated Broker groups, and avoiding unsupported active-active expectations.

How Did You Test This Change?

Documentation-only change.

@oss-sentinel-ai oss-sentinel-ai left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review by github-manager-bot

Summary

This PR adds documentation clarifying same-city dual-site deployment considerations to docs/en/Deployment.md.

Findings

  • [Info] docs/en/Deployment.md:5-10 — Clear and accurate guidance on failure-domain planning, quorum assumptions, and avoiding unsupported active-active expectations.
  • [Info] The content correctly emphasizes the importance of:
    • Explicit failure-domain planning
    • Quorum and failover assumptions
    • NameServer reachability from both sites
    • Using controller-based or replicated HA modes for automatic failover

Suggestions

The documentation addition is well-written and addresses a common deployment confusion. No changes needed.

Verdict

Approved — Valuable documentation improvement with accurate technical guidance.


Automated review by github-manager-bot

@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 47.97%. Comparing base (7e0cec3) to head (eb6bbab).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop   #10429      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      48.04%   47.97%   -0.07%     
+ Complexity     13305    13288      -17     
=============================================
  Files           1377     1377              
  Lines         100613   100613              
  Branches       12992    12992              
=============================================
- Hits           48341    48271      -70     
- Misses         46354    46401      +47     
- Partials        5918     5941      +23     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Doc] Clarify recommended topology for same-city dual-site RocketMQ deployments

3 participants