ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eduard Shangareev <eduard.shangar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:57:48 GMT
Dmitriy,

I also think that we should think about 2.6 as the target.


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> I doubt we will be able to fit this in 2.5 given that we did not even agree
> on the policy interface. Forcing in-memory caches to use baseline topology
> will be an easy technical fix, however, we will need to update and probably
> fix lots of failover tests, add new ones.
>
> I think it makes sense to target this change to 2.6.
>
> 2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh <ilantukh@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Eduard,
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "policy". Is it an interface
> > that will have a few default implementations and user will be able to
> > create his own one? If so, could you please write an example of such
> > interface (how you see it) and how and when it's methods will be invoked.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> > eduard.shangareev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > > I have described the issue with current approach in "New definition for
> > > affinity node (issues with baseline)" topic[1].
> > >
> > > Now we have 2 different affinity topology (one for in-memory, another
> for
> > > persistent caches).
> > >
> > > It causes problems:
> > > - we lose (in general) co-location between different caches;
> > > - we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster;
> > > - implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity
> > > calculation.
> > >
> > > So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches.
> > > They should all use BLAT.
> > >
> > > Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the safety
> > of
> > > in-memory data.
> > > It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which was
> > > already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or
> manually
> > if
> > > the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2].
> > >
> > > And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one
> > > (add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay
> > > [seconds]).
> > >
> > > After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so
> > on.
> > > Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one
> > > possible Affinity Topology.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> > com/New-definition-for-
> > > affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html
> > > [2]
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> > > com/Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the-
> > > baseline-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ilya
> >
>

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