ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Persistence per memory policy configuration
Date Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:52:27 GMT
Vote for 1.

—
Denis

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:23 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Let me summarize current naming ideas one more time:
> 
> 1) [StorageConfiguration - StorageRegionConfiguration]
> 2) [DurableMemoryConfiguration - DataRegionConfiguration]
> 3) [DurableMemoryConfiguration - DurableMemoryRegionConfiguration] - out of
> question, as "durable memory region" is too misleading.
> 
> My vote for p.1. Short, simple and intuitive.
> 
> Vladimir.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Dmitriy, thank you for reply. Do you agree Memory Policy already
>> became
>>> Ignite's term? We call this configuration now
>> MemoryPolicy(Configuration),
>>> can we call new configuration elments by their existings name? We can
>> avoid
>>> introduction of second Ignite's term in that case.
>>> 
>> 
>> The refactoring is about merging memory and persistence configuration under
>> the same umbrella. The term "MemoryPolicy" does not make sense anymore,
>> given that it now also includes persistent configuration as well.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> вт, 26 сент. 2017 г. в 17:27, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>>> 
>>>> Dmitriy, we are not renaming classes, we are refactoring them. Prior to
>>>> this design, it was impossible to set persistence configuration on
>>>> per-cache basis. With this new design, users will be able to configure
>>> some
>>>> caches to be in-memory only and others to be on disk.
>>>> 
>>>> Given that we are already refactoring, it only makes sense to pick
>>> better,
>>>> more appropriate names.
>>>> 
>>>> D.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Vladimir, it is not clear for me, why we need to rename existing
>>>>> configuration classes. Could you explain? And if we can't get
>> consensus
>>>>> now, should we pospond solution?
>>>>> 
>>>>> My idea is that user needs this feature more than elegant names in
>>>>> configuration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moreover once MemoryPolicyConfiguration was introduced as Ignite term
>>> it
>>>> is
>>>>> simpler to keep it as is, than create new terms.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>> 
>>>>> вт, 26 сент. 2017 г. в 16:59, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
>>> :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I do not understand why we should delay with renames. Yes, it will
>>>> cause
>>>>>> questions, so we will have to put additional efforts to docs and
>>>>> JavaDocs.
>>>>>> But the earlier we do that, the better.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>> dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Igniters, sorry for late response. I didn't catch idea of
>>>> renaming.
>>>>>>> PersistentStoreConfiguration is intuitive, and
>>>>> MemoryPolicyConfiguration
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> intuitive also.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If we rename these classes now, it will bring more questions
to
>>> user
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>> Users may be confused by old and new names and by trying to match
>>> it.
>>>>>> More
>>>>>>> issues can came from XML configs that users already have.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can we postpone the renaming? I suggest to finish 'persistence
>> per
>>>>> memory
>>>>>>> policy' task without renaming, and create separate JIRA issue
for
>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>> future decision?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> вт, 26 сент. 2017 г. в 15:25, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I do not like DurableMemoryConfiguration, because it's quite
>>>>> confusing
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> configure in-memory caches using DurableMemory class, which
>>>>> immediately
>>>>>>>> suggests that everything will be persisted. I am not sure
if
>> this
>>>> is
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> right wording choice for the documentation either. I would
go
>>> with
>>>>>>>> DataStoreConfiguration and DataRegionConfiguration.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --AG
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017-09-26 2:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Given that we already have a notion of CacheStore which
comes
>>>> from
>>>>>>> JCache
>>>>>>>>> spec, I think having other stores may get confusing.
I like
>>>>>>>>> DurableMemoryConfiguration.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Other opinions?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dima, let's finalize the design first.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> As I understand, we are happy with idea to merge
>>>>>> MemoryConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>> and PersistentStoreConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>> into something what I called DataConfiguration, and
to
>> rename
>>>>>>>>>> MemoryPolicyConfiguration to DataRegionConfiguration.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The only outstanding qurestion is whether DataConfiguration
>>> is
>>>> a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>> I am not very happy with it, so let's think of other
>>>>> alternatives.
>>>>>>>> Quick
>>>>>>>>>> ideas:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) StoreConfiguration - looks perfect to me - short
and
>>>>>>>> self-describing,
>>>>>>>>>> but clashes a bit with existing CacheStore
>>>>>>>>>> 2) DataStoreConfiguration - same as p.1, but the
word
>> "data"
>>> is
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> necessary IMO
>>>>>>>>>> 3) PageStoreConfiguration? GIves a hint to our page-based
>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>>>> 4) DurableMemoryConfiguration - aligns well with
our docs,
>>> but
>>>> I
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> like it - too long and misleading
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Any other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I would prefer to have either [StoreConfiguration
+
>>>>>>>>>> StoreRegionConfiguration] or [PageStoreConfiguration
and
>>>>>>>>>> PageStoreRegionConfiguration]. Looks clean and simple.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please add the configuration example
in the
>> ticket?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Alexey Goncharuk
<
>>>>>>>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest we finalize the configuration changes
in the
>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>> then: https://issues.apache.org/
>> jira/browse/IGNITE-6030
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> proceed
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-09-23 17:08 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we specify what metrics will look
like? I think
>> we
>>>>> should
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blindly merge them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Vladimir
Ozerov <
>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Makes sense. Thanks for catching
it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:45 AM,
Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we’re taking the consolidation
path for Memory
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> Persistence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then it makes
sense to merge
>>>>> MemoryMetrics
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PersistenceMetrics [2] plus their
JMX beans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache/ignite/MemoryMetrics.html
<
>>>>>>> https://ignite.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases/latest/javadoc/org/
>>>>> apache/ignite/MemoryMetrics.
>>>>>>> html>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PersistenceMetrics.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:18
PM, Dmitriy
>> Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey G, can you please
chime in?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:33
AM, Vladimir
>>> Ozerov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is my proposal:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) MemoryPolicyConfiguration
is renamed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DataRegionConfiguration*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) PersistenceConfiguration
is merged with
>>>>>>>>> MemoryConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> renamed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ... *DataStorageConfiguration*!
It has:
>>> common
>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>>>>>> settings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default data region),
persistence settings
>> (e.g.
>>>>> WAL)
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataRegionConfiguration
beans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we have in the end:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <property name="dataConfiguration">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   <bean class="o.a.i.DataConfiguration">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <property name="pageSize"
value="8192"
>> />
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <property name="persistentStorePath"
>>>>>>>> value="/my/path"
>>>>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <property name="dataRegions">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <list>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               <bean
>>>>>>>> class="o.a.i.DataRegionConfiguration">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   <property
name="name"
>>>>>>> value="VOLATILE"
>>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   <property
name="maxSize"
>>>>>>>>>>> value="1_000_000_000"
>>>>>>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               </bean>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               <bean
>>>>>>>> class="o.a.i.DataRegionConfiguration">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   <property
name="name"
>>>>>>>> value="PERSISTENT"
>>>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   <property
name="maxSize"
>>>>>>>>>>> value="1_000_000_000"
>>>>>>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   <property
name="persistent"
>>>>>>>> value="true"
>>>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               </bean>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           </list>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </property>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   </bean>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </property>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Makes sense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017
at 7:04 AM, Dmitriy
>>>> Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firstly all, why
not call it DataPolicy
>> instead
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> MemoryPolicy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not set data
policies directly on
>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lastly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about we combine
memory and disk properties
>> in
>>>> one
>>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convention?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the example.
Note that all properties
>>>> above
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Memory" or "Disk".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *IgniteConfiguration
cfg = new
>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration();*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *cfg.setDataPolicies(
   new
>>>>>> DataPolicyConfiguration()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setName("bla"),
>>> .setMemoryMaxSize(1024),
>>>>> //
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since memory
always needs to be enabled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setDiskMaxSize(0),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater than
0, then persistence is enabled.
>>>>> );*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this approach
is much more concise
>> and
>>>>>> straight
>>>>>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017
at 4:55 AM, Vladimir
>>> Ozerov
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer the
second. Composition over
>>>> inheritance
>>>>> -
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
is crafted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. we do not
have "CacheConfiguration"
>> and "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StoreEnabledCacheConfiguration".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, we have
"CacheConfiguration.
>>>>>>>>> setCacheStoreFactory".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20,
2017 at 2:46 PM, Alexey
>>>> Goncharuk
>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reiterating
this based on some feedback
>> from
>>>> PDS
>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It might
be confusing to configure
>>> persistence
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "MemoryPolicy",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another approach
is to deprecate the old
>>> names
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> introduce
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "DataRegion"
because it reflects the actual
>>>> state
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk and
partially in memory. I have two
>>>> options
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> mind,
>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks acceptable
to me, so I would like to
>>> have
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community.
Old configuration names will be
>>>>>> deprecated
>>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if used for
backward compatibility). Note,
>>> that
>>>>> old
>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handles default
configuration compatibility
>>>> very
>>>>>>>> nicely -
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PDS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will not
need to change anything to keep
>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>> working.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options I
mentioned are below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * we have
two separate classes for
>> in-memory
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the configuration
would look like so:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration
cfg = new
>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cfg.setDataRegionsConfiguration(new
>>>>>>>>>>> DataRegionsConfiguration()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   .setDataRegions(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       new
MemoryDataRegion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setName("volatileCaches")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setMaxMemorySize(...),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       new
PersistentDataRegion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setName("persistentCaches")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setMaxMemorySize(...)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setMaxDiskSize()));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cfg.setPersistentStoreConfiguration(new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PersistentStoreConfiguration()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> );
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * we have
one class for data region
>>>>> configuration,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-bean
for persistence configuration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration
cfg = new
>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cfg.setDataRegionsConfiguration(new
>>>>>>>>>>> DataRegionsConfiguration()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   .setDataRegions(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       new
DataRegion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setName("volatileCaches")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setMaxMemorySize(...),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       new
DataRegion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setName("persistentCaches")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setMaxMemorySize(...),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
 .setPersistenceConfiguration(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
     new
>>>> DataRegionPersistenceConfigura
>>>>>>> tion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
         .setMaxDiskSize(...))));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cfg.setPersistentStoreConfiguration(new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PersistentStoreConfiguration()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> );
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message