geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:52:23 GMT
Given the current types that gfsh supports, I don't see that it will be
lots of validation. We have the redundancy level to validate for the
REDUNDANT types. And we have HEAP_LRU and OVERFLOW to validate. That is it.
The only other thing is the partition only attributes should be rejected
when creating a replicate. I think we should just support the types "gfsh
create region" does.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jinmei Liao <jiliao@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Maybe to clarify what I said before (which was certainly unclear ), I am
> not saying we only allow users to create limited set of types of region, we
> COULD still support all of them, but we should not limit ourselves to the
> current ways of doing things. Currently, a flat model of region
> configuration which holds a type and all the possible attributes any type
> of region can have, could lead to these problems:
> 1. the type may be contradictory/redundant to a particular property:
>   for example, the type could "PARTITION_REDUNDANT", but the
> redundantCopies is set to be 0. And the type could be "PARTITION_OVERFLOW",
> but the eviction action is set to be "LOCAL_DESTROY". To avoid this, we
> will need to do a lot of front end validation in order to accept this
> configuration, which is possible to do, but is it really necessary? Should
> we somehow limit the type to something that really indicate the "type"
> instead of just a shortcut that actually sets a set of attributes.
>
> 2. the object can hold lots of unnecessary attributes that only pertains to
> a particular type
> for example, redundantCopies doesn't really apply to replicate regions, but
> it's there for you to configure.
>
> Just some more food for thought.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:34 PM Charlie Black <cblack@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Yes it is common for 0,1 and 2.   3 enters into gray space of is the cost
> > of redundancy worth it.
> >
> > So voting for exposing the number of copies to be the same as Apache
> Geode
> > Java API.
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Darrel Schneider <dschneider@pivotal.io
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant
> copies.
> > Is
> > > redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api
> to
> > > support it?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to Alexander’s statement.
> > > >
> > > > Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the
> > common
> > > > use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy
> regions
> > on
> > > > the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first
> for
> > > the
> > > > initial release.
> > > >
> > > > -jake
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann <
> amurmann@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps
> > have
> > > > no
> > > > > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider <
> > > dschneider@pivotal.io
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the
> members
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > >> cluster to always be uniform?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao <jiliao@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's
OK to
> > drop
> > > > >>> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also
> > experimenting
> > > > >> using
> > > > >>> different object types to represent different types of region,
> for
> > > > >> example,
> > > > >>> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition
regions.
> > > > Instead
> > > > >>> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of
these
> > values
> > > > and
> > > > >>> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense
for
> that
> > > > type,
> > > > >>> should just have a factory method that given these region
> > shortcuts,
> > > we
> > > > >>> would return a specific region object that's determined by
this
> > type?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe <jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there
is no
> > ability
> > > > >> for a
> > > > >>>> user to group members thus it is also not possible to
create
> > regions
> > > > >> (via
> > > > >>>> gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically
one would
> > > > >> create a
> > > > >>>> PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region
against
> > > > another
> > > > >>>> group. However, without the ability to assign groups,
that is
> not
> > > > >>> possible.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --Jens
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz <
> mstolz@pivotal.io>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the
server side
> to
> > > > >> host
> > > > >>>>> logic associated with the region, but I think they
always do
> that
> > > in
> > > > >>>>> conjunction with server groups so that the proxy
is on some of
> > the
> > > > >>> server
> > > > >>>>> and the same region containing data is on others.
Given the way
> > > > >>> cache.xml
> > > > >>>>> works they might not even bother with the server
groups, but
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > >>>> sure.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts
and not
> go
> > > > >>>> backward
> > > > >>>>> to the separate attributes.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> Mike Stolz
> > > > >>>>> Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache
> > > > >>>>> Mobile: +1-631-835-4771
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider
<
> > > > >>> dschneider@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Keep in mind that the context of the regions
in question is
> the
> > > > >>>> cluster.
> > > > >>>>> So
> > > > >>>>>> these regions would be created on servers.
> > > > >>>>>> So, for example, does anyone see a need to create
PROXY
> regions
> > on
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>>> server? Even if we did not support them on the
server, they
> > would
> > > > >>> still
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>> supported on clients.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao <
> jiliao@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Region type (in another word Region shortcut)
defines a set
> of
> > > > >>>>> attributes
> > > > >>>>>>> for a region. These are the list of region
types we have:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> LOCAL,
> > > > >>>>>>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT,
> > > > >>>>>>> LOCAL_HEAP_LRU,
> > > > >>>>>>> LOCAL_OVERFLOW,
> > > > >>>>>>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_OVERFLOW,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_HEAP_LRU,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> REPLICATE,
> > > > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT,
> > > > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_OVERFLOW,
> > > > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW,
> > > > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_PROXY,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_PROXY,
> > > > >>>>>>> PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> In region management rest api, especially
in PCC world, we
> are
> > > > >>>>> wondering
> > > > >>>>>>> 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL*
regions through
> > > > >>> management
> > > > >>>>> rest
> > > > >>>>>>> api?
> > > > >>>>>>> 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY
regions through
> > > > >>> management
> > > > >>>>> rest
> > > > >>>>>>> api?
> > > > >>>>>>> 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE*
types,
> should
> > we
> > > > >>>>> strive
> > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> keep the region type list the same as before,
or only keep
> the
> > > > >> type
> > > > >>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>> REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties
like
> > > > >> "redundantCopy"
> > > > >>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>> "evictionAction" to allow different permutations
of region
> > > > >>>> attributes?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> comments appreciated!
> > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>> Cheers
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Jinmei
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Jinmei
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Charlie Black | cblack@pivotal.io
> >
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Jinmei
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message