ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Persistence per memory policy configuration
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:40:40 GMT
This is possible, but then if two caches belong to the same memory policy,
they must be both either persistence-enabled or persistence-disabled. We
can add this validation, but I think this will lead to a greater confusion
for a user.

2017-09-12 12:34 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org>:

> Agree with Vladimir.
>
> Currently we enable persistence cluster-wide by setting
> IgniteConfiguration.persistentStoreConfiguration.
> Ideally CacheConfiguration.persistenceEnabled should be the only setting I
> need to set.
>
> Thanks,
> Pavel
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As a user I would definitely prefer to control persistence through flag
> on
> > cache configuration. I do not even want to know what "memory policy" is.
> > E.g. CacheConfiguration.persistenceEnabled.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I am currently reviewing a change allowing to enable persistence on a
> > > per-memory-policy basis (thanks to K. Dudkov!) and have a question
> > > regarding the changes in configuration.
> > >
> > > The suggested change is to add a flag "persistenceEnabled" (defaults to
> > > true) to the memory policy configuration. To keep configuration
> > > compatibility, the logic is as follows:
> > >
> > > If PersistentStoreConfiguration is set, then only memory policies with
> > > persistenceEnabled=true flag will be persisted, which is consistent
> with
> > > the current behavior. To disable persistence, persistenceEnabled flag
> > > should be explicitly set to false.
> > >
> > > If PersistentStoreConfiguration is not set, then all caches are stored
> > > in-memory and persistenceEnabled is ignored.
> > >
> > > While personally, I like this change, I would like to check if there
> are
> > > any thoughts or objections to this approach.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > AG
> > >
> >
>

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