ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Best Effort Affinity for thin clients
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:59:45 GMT
Igor,

>  It is proposed to add flag to every response, that shows whether the
Affinity Topology Version of the cluster has changed since the last request
from the client.
I propose to keep this flag. So no need for periodic checks. Makes sense?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:45 PM Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org> wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> This will require from client to send this new request periodically, I'm
> not
> sure this will make clients simpler. Anyway, let's discuss it.
>
> Vladimir,
>
> With current proposal, we will have affinity info in message header.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:01 AM Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Igor,
> >
> > I think that "Cache Partitions Request" should contain affinity topology
> > version. Otherwise we do not know what distribution is returned - the one
> > we expected, or some newer one. The latter may happen in case topology
> > changed or late affinity assignment happened between server response and
> > subsequent client partitions request.
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:08 PM Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello guys,
> > >
> > > I've updated IEP page [1] describing proposed solution in more details
> > and
> > > proposing some changes for a protocol.
> > >
> > > Please, take a look and let me know what you think.
> > >
> > > [1] -
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:54 AM Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, in principle we can extend it. We are going to implement it in
> > > > subsequent phases of this IEP.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feel that this functionality can be extended to the automatic
> > > > reconnect,
> > > > > > can't it? Presently we require to provide a static list of IPs
to
> > be
> > > > used
> > > > > > at a reconnect time. By having a partition map of all the nodes,
> > the
> > > > thin
> > > > > > client should be able to automate this piece.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure if static IP list can be avoided. What Igor is suggesting
> is
> > > > that
> > > > > we try to pick the best node out of the static IP  list.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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