Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKdXNOXt2P5CH=uWg+XWxn7NbionWFutrnaJz_EWZmnOUFHyqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKr8LfwHZovABKxfCZ=04LpBKB6bwogH91ArZeBg_ikqE+GxLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ADB0EBF-5355-4E17-BA55-062C126D6219@apache.org> <CAKr8LfzzM6UHDTGae+N48wVsumFkGyzVZ0LcBqYobh8GhC4U8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDss3hruAnA=qGTM11=u8Rzu1xj_inZ2-kCrg+v+ZKLAm8B4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKr8LfyndBRz3soXfpSUgoDmF5ZHHv8keNaV188k_TiPMeO5=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKdXNOXt2P5CH=uWg+XWxn7NbionWFutrnaJz_EWZmnOUFHyqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:25:20 +0300
Message-ID: <CABDss3isGSW+s9_mTq_jduRwLf=H9r=pu6twFZKqk0A2ipWBwg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: distributed transaction of non-single coordinator
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f8e9cb31b97054a612189
archived-at: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:25:27 -0000

--f403045f8e9cb31b97054a612189
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Aleksey,

I think I am starting to get what you want, but I have a few concerns:
 - What is the API for the proposed change? In your test, you pass an
instance of transaction created on ignite(0) to the ignite instance
ignite(1). This is obviously not possible in a truly distributed
(multi-jvm) environment.
- How will you synchronize cache update actions and transaction commit?
Say, you have one node that decided to commit, but another node is still
writing within this transaction. How do you make sure that two nodes will
not call commit() and rollback() simultaneously?
 - How do you make sure that either commit() or rollback() is called if an
originator failed?

2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00 =D0=94=D0=BC=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=
=A0=D1=8F=D0=B1=D0=BE=D0=B2 <somefireone@gmail.com>:

> Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my initial understanding was that transferring of =
tx
> ownership from one node to another will be happened automatically when
> originating node is gone down.
>
> 2017-03-10 15:36 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
>
> > Im aiming to span transaction on multiple threads, nodes, jvms(soon). S=
o
> > every node is able to rollback, or commit common transaction.It turned
> up i
> > need to transfer tx between nodes in order to commit transaction in
> > different node(in the same jvm).
> >
> > =D0=BF=D1=82, 10 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80. 2017 =D0=B3. =D0=B2 15:20, Alexey =
Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Aleksey,
> > >
> > > Do you mean that you want a concept of transferring of tx ownership
> from
> > > one node to another? My initial understanding was that you want to be
> > able
> > > to update keys in a transaction from multiple threads in parallel.
> > >
> > > --AG
> > >
> > > 2017-03-10 15:01 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.co=
m
> >:
> > >
> > > > Well. Consider transaction started in one node, and continued in
> > another
> > > > one.
> > > > The following test describes my idea:
> > > >
> > > > Ignite ignite1 =3D ignite(0);
> > > >
> > > > IgniteTransactions transactions =3D ignite1.transactions();
> > > >
> > > > IgniteCache<String, Integer> cache =3D ignite1.getOrCreateCache("
> > > > testCache");
> > > >
> > > > Transaction tx =3D transactions.txStart(concurrency, isolation);
> > > >
> > > > cache.put("key1", 1);
> > > >
> > > > cache.put("key2", 2);
> > > >
> > > > tx.stop();
> > > >
> > > > IgniteInternalFuture<Boolean> fut =3D GridTestUtils.runAsync(() -> =
{
> > > >     IgniteTransactions ts =3D ignite(1).transactions();
> > > >     Assert.assertNull(ts.tx());
> > > >     Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.STOPPED, tx.state());
> > > >     ts.txStart(tx);
> > > >     Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.ACTIVE, tx.state());
> > > >     cache.put("key3", 3);
> > > >     Assert.assertTrue(cache.remove("key2"));
> > > >     tx.commit();
> > > >     return true;
> > > > });
> > > >
> > > > fut.get();
> > > >
> > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.COMMITTED, tx.state());
> > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)1, (long)cache.get("key1"));
> > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)3, (long)cache.get("key3"));
> > > > Assert.assertFalse(cache.containsKey("key2"));
> > > >
> > > > In method *ts.txStart(...)* we just rebind *tx* to current thread:
> > > >
> > > > public void txStart(Transaction tx) {
> > > >     TransactionProxyImpl transactionProxy =3D (TransactionProxyImpl=
)tx;
> > > >     cctx.tm().reopenTx(transactionProxy.tx());
> > > >     transactionProxy.bindToCurrentThread();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > In method *reopenTx* we alter *threadMap* so that it binds
> transaction
> > > > to current thread.
> > > >
> > > > How do u think about it ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =D0=B2=D1=82, 7 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80. 2017 =D0=B3. =D0=B2 22:38, Deni=
s Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please share the rational behind this and the thoughts, design
> ideas
> > > you
> > > > > have in mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > =E2=80=94
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 3:19 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all! Im designing distributed transaction which can be start=
ed
> > at
> > > > one
> > > > > > node, and continued at other one. Has anybody thoughts on it ?
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > >
> > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > >
> > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> >
>

--f403045f8e9cb31b97054a612189--