ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: distributed transaction of non-single coordinator
Date Mon, 03 Jul 2017 12:19:43 GMT
Yakov, I have couple of questions regarding tests proposal.Thx

пт, 30 июн. 2017 г. в 19:17, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:

> Thanks! Do you think all test scenarios results, presented in table(in
> ticket comments) , are acceptable ?
>
> пт, 30 июн. 2017 г., 18:28 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@gridgain.com>:
>
>> Alex, I have commented in the ticket. Please take a look.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> --
>> Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>> *GridGain Systems*
>> www.gridgain.com
>>
>> 2017-06-29 17:27 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > I've attached HangTest. I suppose it should not hang, am i right ?
>> >
>> > чт, 29 июн. 2017 г. в 14:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > > Igntrs.
>> > > Im rewieving all usages of threadId of
>> > > transaction.(IgniteTxAdapter#threadID). What is the point of usage
>> > threadId
>> > > in mvcc entry ?
>> > >
>> > > пн, 3 апр. 2017 г. в 9:47, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > >> so what do u think on my idea?
>> > >>
>> > >> пт, 31 Мар 2017 г., 11:05 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
>> > >>
>> > >>> sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node
>> > transactions,
>> > >>> but failed.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
>> > >>> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > so what do u think on the issue ?
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> >:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
>> > >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
>> > >>> > > and a commit :
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>>
>> https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
>> > >>> > 436b638e5c
>> > >>> > > We really need this feature
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > >:
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > Aleksey,
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction
>> > recovery
>> > >>> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its
>> internal
>> > >>> logic.
>> > >>> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you
>> > want
>> > >>> to
>> > >>> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx
>> > >>> owner
>> > >>> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node
>> may
>> > >>> fail
>> > >>> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership
>> changed,
>> > >>> you
>> > >>> > need
>> > >>> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this
>> change,
>> > >>> and it
>> > >>> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not
>> add
>> > any
>> > >>> > tests
>> > >>> > > for these cases.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with
>> > >>> clear
>> > >>> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason
>> > >>> about
>> > >>> > the
>> > >>> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are
>> > making
>> > >>> > these
>> > >>> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > --AG
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > >:
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
>> > >>> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change
>> > transaction
>> > >>> > status
>> > >>> > > > to
>> > >>> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another
>> thread.
>> > In
>> > >>> > > another
>> > >>> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit
>> > it.
>> > >>> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to
>> > >>> newer one
>> > >>> > > in
>> > >>> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState,
>> > transactions
>> > >>> > > itself
>> > >>> > > > to
>> > >>> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
>> >:
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > Aleksey,
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what
>> > >>> exactly
>> > >>> > was
>> > >>> > > > > done and how the things work.
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > —
>> > >>> > > > > Denis
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>
>> > >>> > > > > wrote:
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
>> > >>> > non-single
>> > >>> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread
>> and
>> > >>> > commit
>> > >>> > > it
>> > >>> > > > > in
>> > >>> > > > > > another thread.
>> > >>> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
>> > >>> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > >:
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
>> > >>> > > > > >>
>> > >>> > > > > >> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>
>> > >>> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >:
>> > >>> > > > > >>
>> > >>> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your
>> > >>> "accumulation"
>> > >>> > > > > >>> approach.These are
>> > >>> > > > > >>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from
>> temporary
>> > >>> cache
>> > >>> > > to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
>> > >>> transactions
>> > >>> > in
>> > >>> > > > > >>> Service
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   commiter
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in
>> > >>> memory
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite,
>> working
>> > >>> with
>> > >>> > > > cache
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's
>> > >>> node can
>> > >>> > > > > >> evaluate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal
>> with
>> > >>> both
>> > >>> > > types
>> > >>> > > > > of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and
>> > >>> non-transactional.Another
>> > >>> > one
>> > >>> > > > > >>> problem is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
>> > >>> handled
>> > >>> > > all
>> > >>> > > > > >> this
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
>> > >>> > > transaction.
>> > >>> > > > We
>> > >>> > > > > >> put
>> > >>> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how
>> to
>> > >>> solve
>> > >>> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
>> > >>> > > > > >>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and
>> millions
>> > >>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >> operations
>> > >>> > > > > >>> on
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math,
>> plan
>> > >>> > > capacity
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
>> > >>> > operations,
>> > >>> > > > > >> would
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> not
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
>> > >>> > degradation
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the
>> values
>> > >>> you
>> > >>> > > have
>> > >>> > > > > >>> read
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic
>> can
>> > be
>> > >>> > > > > >> relatively
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> easily
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need
>> to
>> > >>> > > implement
>> > >>> > > > > >> one
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you
>> > easily
>> > >>> > will
>> > >>> > > > end
>> > >>> > > > > >>> up
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> with
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates
>> for
>> > >>> your
>> > >>> > > keys,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start
>> a
>> > >>> thread
>> > >>> > > for
>> > >>> > > > > >> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a
>> > >>> lock on
>> > >>> > > the
>> > >>> > > > > >> key
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> using
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any
>> Services,
>> > >>> wait
>> > >>> > for
>> > >>> > > > all
>> > >>> > > > > >>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in
>> the
>> > >>> same
>> > >>> > > thread
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> while
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that
>> all
>> > the
>> > >>> > > Ignite
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be
>> optimistic
>> > >>> here to
>> > >>> > > be
>> > >>> > > > > >>> able
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach
>> > >>> until you
>> > >>> > > > > >> have a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure
>> no
>> > one
>> > >>> > > altered
>> > >>> > > > > >>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other
>> > >>> dependent
>> > >>> > > keys.
>> > >>> > > > > >>> How
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> could
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of
>> > course)
>> > >>> ?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A
>> > >>> introduce
>> > >>> > > > > >> changes?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> So
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> no
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this
>> key-value?(sort
>> > >>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such
>> approach ?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but
>> only
>> > >>> > generate
>> > >>> > > > > >>> new
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the
>> > same
>> > >>> > cache
>> > >>> > > > > >> +
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> remember
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the
>> transaction
>> > >>> in
>> > >>> > some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache
>> > >>> contents by
>> > >>> > > > > >> each
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some
>> > >>> separate
>> > >>> > > > > >>> atomic
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 ->
>> ver3)]
>> > in
>> > >>> some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of
>> > updated
>> > >>> keys
>> > >>> > > > > >> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> their
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts
>> > Ignite
>> > >>> > > > > >>> transaction
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken
>> > >>> from k*x
>> > >>> > > > > >>> keys.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> The
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 ->
>> ver3)]
>> > in
>> > >>> some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
>> > >>> updated
>> > >>> > > the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> original
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give
>> > any
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> serializability
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here
>> we
>> > >>> may
>> > >>> > need
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> check
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> not
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also
>> versions
>> > of
>> > >>> any
>> > >>> > > > > >> other
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> end
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup
>> (may
>> > be
>> > >>> > > > > >> outside
>> > >>> > > > > >>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final
>> state:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for
>> > all
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >> old
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> values
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"?
>> > Every
>> > >>> > time
>> > >>> > > > > >>> you
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> change
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some
>> > special
>> > >>> > > > > >> atomic
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service
>> commiter
>> > >>> got a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> values
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> with
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and
>> > values*"
>> > >>> > > > > >>> Service
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
>> > >>> version
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> or
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions
>> would
>> > it
>> > >>> > > > > >> match?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement
>> at
>> > the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> application
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the
>> following
>> > >>> > order:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,
>>  k2 =>
>> > >>> v2]
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [k1
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3
>> =>
>> > >>> v3]
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> [k2
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is
>> a
>> > >>> unique
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all
>> > the
>> > >>> > > > > >>> services.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> If
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an
>> > intermediate
>> > >>> key
>> > >>> > > > > >> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the
>> finalized
>> > key
>> > >>> > > > > >> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> must
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for
>> > >>> everyone.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which
>> is a
>> > >>> > version
>> > >>> > > > > >>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> that
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way
>> is
>> > >>> to use
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> UUID.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction
>> with
>> > >>> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >> =
>> > >>> > > > > >>> x
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
>> > >>> duration
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> after
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field
>> > >>> `otx` =
>> > >>> > > > > >> x
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old
>> > >>> versions
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic
>> cache
>> > >>> like
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because
>> it
>> > >>> knows
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> =
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> x
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1
>> ->
>> > >>> ver1,
>> > >>> > > > > >> k2
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> ->
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into
>> > Orchestrator):
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for
>> `otx`
>> > =
>> > >>> x
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions
>> for
>> > >>> all
>> > >>> > > > > >> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> old
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> values
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
>> > >>> rollbacks
>> > >>> > > > > >>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with
>> new
>> > >>> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent
>> > >>> parts of
>> > >>> > > > > >> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> graph
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run
>> only
>> > >>> one at
>> > >>> > > > > >> a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> time).
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault
>> > tolerance
>> > >>> > > > > >>> technics
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> because
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all
>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> intermediate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL,
>> thus in
>> > >>> case
>> > >>> > > > > >> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> any
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business
>> task. I
>> > >>> mean,
>> > >>> > > > > >>> we
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> can
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> make
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed
>> transaction.
>> > Not
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
>> > >>> already
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply
>> passing
>> > TX
>> > >>> > > > > >> state
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> over
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required
>> > >>> still
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> manage
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> all
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with
>> > clean
>> > >>> > > > > >>> design
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent
>> > >>> events.
>> > >>> > > > > >> And
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> only
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move
>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> development
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY
>> > KUZNETSOV
>> > >>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes
>> > some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls
>> them
>> > by
>> > >>> > > > > >>> some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> kind
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them,
>> > right?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV
>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is
>> > responsible
>> > >>> > > > > >>> for
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> They
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with
>> > BPMN
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
>> > >>> > > > > >> from
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
>> > >>> > > > > >>> which
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> process)
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> which
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates
>> *variable A
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> *with
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> value
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
>> > >>> > > > > >> sends
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> to*
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some
>> logic
>> > >>> > > > > >>> with
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi
>> Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
>> > >>> > > > > >>> wrong
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business
>> case?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > >>> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
>> > >>> > > > > >>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> rollback
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
>> > >>> > > > > >> some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
>> > >>> > > > > >> make
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> that
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
>> > >>> > > > > >>> make
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
>> > >>> > > > > >> changes
>> > >>> > > > > >>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
>> > >>> > > > > >> be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> met
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
>> > >>> > > > > >> Sending
>> > >>> > > > > >>> TX
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> business
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
>> > >>> > > > > >>> be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> done
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
>> > >>> > > > > >>> solution?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
>> > >>> > > > > >>> require
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
>> > >>> > > > > >> performance
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
>> > >>> > > > > >>> on
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> it.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> implememntation
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
>> > >>> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
>> > >>> > > > > >>> that
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> we
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> are
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --
>> >
>> > *Best Regards,*
>> >
>> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >
>>
> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>
-- 

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

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