ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Service grid redesign
Date Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:14:58 GMT
Hello, Vladimir.

> There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
information to coordinator that they finished some operation
1. Each node sends to coordinator local deployments results.
2. Coordinator sends to each node full deployment map.

This is the same process we have in PME for me.
What have I miss?

21 нояб. 2018 г. 11:04 AM пользователь "Vladimir Ozerov" <
vozerov@gridgain.com> написал:

I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that "exchange" is
counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. we do
the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis suggested,
Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should explain what
really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat similar in
internal flow.


On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hello, Vladimir.
>
> What is correct term?
>
>
> ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov vozerov@gridgain.com:
>
> > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not use
> the
> > same term for different things.
> >
> > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhanikov@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments
> > later.
> > >
> > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
> > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't
> > really
> > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an
> > actual
> > > exchange of information.
> > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and
what
> > > their states are.
> > >
> > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip
the
> > > "exchange" part.
> > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > response*
> > > in case of services.
> > >
> > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a
> word
> > > "exchange",
> > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something
> else.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > >
> > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in
> > > sign.
> > > >
> > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new
> features
> > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > > > end-users.
> > > >
> > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of
> questions.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the
> upcoming
> > > > week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind.
We
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough
reviews
> > are
> > > > ready,
> > > > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about
> quality,
> > > not
> > > > speed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed?
> > > Affinity,
> > > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the
cases on the
> > wiki
> > > > and
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur
<
> > > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Services reassignment process takes into
account
previous
> > > > assignments
> > > > > > > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > > > > > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't
be moved from
> > node1
> > > > to
> > > > > > > node2.
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda
<
> > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > First of all, thanks for archiving
this milestone and
> > > > rolling out
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of the topology change events
[1], does the
> new
> > > > > > > architecture
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > a running service redeployment when
a new node joins?
> For
> > > > instance,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > > say I have ServiceA running node1,
then node2 joins
> and I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > service to be redeployed to any other
node.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav
Daradur <
> > > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation
in wiki:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM
Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi I think wiki is better
than any attached docs.
> > Could
> > > > you
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > page?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г.,
14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I prepared a description
of the implemented
> > solution
> > > > and
> > > > > > > attached
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the issue [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This should help during
a review. Should I post
> the
> > > > document
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's
experts review the
> > solution
> > > > [1] [2],
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > please?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018
at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav
> Daradur
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good
news!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign
Phase 1 - is in Patch
> > > > Available now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov
has reviewed implementation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we need
additional review from other
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > experts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella
ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could someone step
in and do the review?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18,
2018 at 11:44 AM Denis
> > Mekhanikov <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, could
you assist?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it make
sense for .Net to specify
> service
> > > > class name
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, it
shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug
18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav
> Daradur
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think
that the replacement of serialized
> > > > instance
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > > > to me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for Java
part.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how
it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy
> > > > Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita
> > > > Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I am working on task [1] that would
> > replace
> > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > service's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> by service's class name and properties
> > map
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> {String className} + {Map<String,
> Object>
> > > > > > > properties}
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > {Service
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> srvc}.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I'd like to clarify the following
> > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I suggest to mark them as deprecated
> and
> > > use
> > > > class
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> instance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Also to add deploying methods with new
> > > > parameters:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> @Deprecated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> public IgniteInternalFuture<?>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> String
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> name, Service svc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> public IgniteInternalFuture<?>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> String
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> name, String srvcClsName, Map<String,
> > > > Object> prop)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
I think this makes sense, but I would
> like
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > committers to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment
> > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> 2. Is {Map<String, Object> properties}
> > > > parameter
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > mandatory
> > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deploying
a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> service?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Is it make sense to add deploying
> methods
> > > > without
> > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> public IgniteInternalFuture<?>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> String
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> name, String srvcClsName)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> public IgniteInternalFuture<?>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> String
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> name, String srvcClsName, Map<String,
> > > > Object> prop)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
I would always ask the user to pass the
> > > > property
> > > > > > > map, but
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allow it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
be null.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
D.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
D.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
D.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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