ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitry Karachentsev <dkarachent...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Neighbors exclusion
Date Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:47:20 GMT
Created a ticket and mapped to 3.0 version, as it changes basic default 
behavior:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9011

Thanks!

13.07.2018 22:10, Valentin Kulichenko пишет:
> Dmitry,
>
> Good point. I think it makes sense to even remove (deprecate) the
> excludeNeighbors property and always distribute primary and backups to
> different physical hosts in this scenario. Because why would anyone ever
> set this to false if we switch default to true? This also automatically
> fixes the confusing behavior of backupFilter - it should never be ignored
> if it's set.
>
> -Val
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 8:05 AM Dmitry Karachentsev <
> dkarachentsev@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Why RendezvousAffinityFunction.excludeNeighbors [1] is false by default?
>> It's not obvious that if user wants to run more than one node per
>> machine it has also set this flag to true explicitly. Maybe it would be
>> better to set it to true by default?
>>
>> At the same time if excludeNeighbors is true, it ignores backupFilter.
>> Why it's not vice-versa? For example:
>>
>> 1) if backupFilter is set - it will be used,
>>
>> 2) if there are not enough backup nodes (or no backupFilter) - try to
>> distribute according to excludeNeighbors = true,
>>
>> 3) if this is not possible too (or excludeNeighbors) = false - assign
>> partitions as possible.
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/cache/affinity/rendezvous/RendezvousAffinityFunction.html#setExcludeNeighbors-boolean-
>>
>> Are there any drawbacks in such approach?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message