geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Charlie Black <cbl...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2019 02:34:15 GMT
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

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