geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:12:26 GMT
I'm not at all sure why supporting the current set is more work than a
subset. Are we planning to fix issues in the current implementation in the
new API rather than the underlying (still needed) existing API? How is that
a good idea?



--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache
Mobile: +1-631-835-4771

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 9:09 PM Anilkumar Gingade <agingade@pivotal.io> wrote:

> My vote is for supporting all the region type currently supported. As mike
> was pointing, we have seen usecases where different regions are used for
> specific application needs.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:09 PM Darrel Schneider <dschneider@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > gfsh create region currently does not support "distributed-no-ack" nor
> > "global". I did not find in jira a feature request for gfsh to support
> > these. So I think it would be safe for the Geode Management REST API to
> > also not support those scopes.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:10 PM Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely
> support
> > > "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more
> > > groups.
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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