ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com>
Subject Fwd: Data lost when using write-behind
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:17:14 GMT
Igniters,

Do we queue changes on backup nodes as well and flush them to the store if a primary node
leaves?

This is irrelevant for transactional caches since changes are queue and flushed on a side
of a transaction initiator, right? And flushing from backups makes sense only for atomic caches,
correct?

—
Denis

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Shaomin Zhang <Shaomin.Zhang@tudor.com>
> Subject: RE: Data lost when using write-behind
> Date: April 18, 2016 at 6:35:20 PM GMT+3
> To: "user@ignite.apache.org" <user@ignite.apache.org>
> Reply-To: user@ignite.apache.org
> 
> Hi Alexei
>  
> Will updates that are lost because of the node failure will be retried to be persisted
to database later?
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Shaomin
>  
> From: Alexei Scherbakov [mailto:alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 18 April 2016 15:27
> To: user@ignite.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Data lost when using write-behind
>  
> Hi,
>  
> You should use write-behind mode only if it's acceptable for you to lose some updates
to persistent store on node failures.
> Be vary of possible desync between persistent store and cache after node recovery.
> You can tune write-behind behavior as described here:
> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/persistent-store#configuration <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__apacheignite.readme.io_docs_persistent-2Dstore-23configuration&d=CwMFaQ&c=lcVbikor4usg5Rj5OmznbA&r=TO3grc1lvgRzUij7SCtFhBPVz_ocKy44E1ncA3VjNmM&m=vJJJDAQ260MnYql1raooH2qhXcGEeGtNVzdRirH_kzo&s=NxaNDHVKM3hIoqnL1tRaKHJIQcztibaLeIKSoiJfisM&e=>
>  
>  
>  
> 2016-04-18 5:25 GMT+03:00 wang shuai <wangshuaie@yonyou.com <mailto:wangshuaie@yonyou.com>>:
>   When testing the write-behind feature, I found the data which would be
> persisted to back-end database was put in a queue of JVM. That means if that
> server crash, the data which has not been persisted to the database will be
> lost. Even though that part of data can be found in other server's memory,
> that data can not be updated to database automatically.
>   So I want to make clear what the recommended scenario is to use
> write-behind and how to handle the server crash when using write-behind.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Data-lost-when-using-write-behind-tp4265.html
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__apache-2Dignite-2Dusers.70518.x6.nabble.com_Data-2Dlost-2Dwhen-2Dusing-2Dwrite-2Dbehind-2Dtp4265.html&d=CwMFaQ&c=lcVbikor4usg5Rj5OmznbA&r=TO3grc1lvgRzUij7SCtFhBPVz_ocKy44E1ncA3VjNmM&m=vJJJDAQ260MnYql1raooH2qhXcGEeGtNVzdRirH_kzo&s=4hEm13b3-E-vZ1QcqI35pBDphCxAvgb5RKbdsbFViVU&e=>
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> 
>  
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Alexei Scherbakov
> _________________________________________________________
> 
> This email, its contents, and any attachments transmitted with it are intended only for
the addressee(s) and may be confidential and legally privileged. We do not waive any confidentiality
by misdelivery. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately
and delete it. You should not copy it, forward it or otherwise use the contents, attachments
or information in any way. Any liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted
by law.
> 
> Tudor Capital Europe LLP (TCE) is authorised and regulated by The Financial Conduct Authority
(the FCA). TCE is registered as a limited liability partnership in England and Wales No: OC340673
with its registered office at 10 New Burlington Street, London, W1S 3BE, United Kingdom
> 


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