ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ignite: configuration changes at runtime
Date Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:28:11 GMT
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Alexey Kukushkin <kukushkinalexey@gmail.com
> wrote:

> I would vote for not automatically persisting runtime configuration
> changes. Still it makes sense to expose a "save(fileName)" method to allow
> explicitly saving changes to a different or same config file.
>

I like this better. We should give user an ability to save the updated
configuration into a file.


>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Alexey Dmitriev <admitriev@gridgain.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would say it should as soon as we moving to "persistence".
> > > It will require to look at the things a bit different than before, but
> I
> > > would say that's an evolution for the product.
> > > We probably also should think how our configuration system should be
> > > changed to make it more obvious.
> > >
> >
> > But in that case, what to do with XML configuration? Should it be updated
> > as well? Or even worse, what if user added configuration from code?
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think the main question I have is whether this configuration change
> > > will
> > > > survive restarts. Part of me says it should, and the other part says
> it
> > > > shouldn't.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone have a strong opinion about this?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Alexey Dmitriev <
> > admitriev@gridgain.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It looks like very useful and natural thing having the parameters
> > > change
> > > > on
> > > > > the fly.
> > > > > Maybe we should design something like OLCC (on-line configuration
> > > change)
> > > > > module, which will request different procedures for different bunch
> > of
> > > > > parameters.
> > > > > All the parameters, this way, will be splitted into several groups.
> > > > > For example in the worst case, when all the grid has to be
> > synchronized
> > > > for
> > > > > particular parameter change, some preparation on the grid has to
be
> > > > > performed, than when all the nodes reports readiness, the parameter
> > > > change
> > > > > could be initiated.
> > > > > On the opposite if it is parameter configured per node, OLCC state
> > > > machine
> > > > > will work simpler without inter-node communication.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhdanov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >I see your point. In this case, we should have a special
package
> > > > > > containing
> > > > > > >all the runtime config properties.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitry, I think this will be a mess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters, any more opinions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alexey Dmitriev, VP Engineering
> > > > > *GridGain Systems*
> > > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey Dmitriev, VP Engineering
> > > *GridGain Systems*
> > > www.gridgain.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Alexey
>

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