Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4E6200BBF for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:10:00 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id ECD2C160B06; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:10:00 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 420E9160B05 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:10:00 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 88071 invoked by uid 500); 14 Nov 2016 12:09:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@ignite.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@ignite.apache.org Received: (qmail 88061 invoked by uid 99); 14 Nov 2016 12:09:54 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:09:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id F329EC73CA for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:09:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.173 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S8WUgLTI0p-a for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mbob.nabble.com (mbob.nabble.com [162.253.133.15]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id ECD5E5F472 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:09:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static.162.255.23.37.macminivault.com (unknown [162.255.23.37]) by mbob.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E739035ED0DF for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 04:00:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:09:48 -0700 (MST) From: Krzysztof To: user@ignite.apache.org Message-ID: <1479125388727-8940.post@n6.nabble.com> Subject: Partitioning on a non-uniform cluster MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:10:01 -0000 Hello, Judging by the documentation and some discussions on this list, can you confirm that Ignite cache does not take into account different memory settings, i.e. if we have various nodes with 16GB and 32GB allocated for cache, there would be no two times more partitions assigned to larger nodes? In order to not to underutilize larger nodes or overfill smaller nodes we would have to develop our own affinity strategy via AffinityFunction in order to make it cache-size aware? RendezvousAffinityFunction seems to be completely resource-blind? Could you please clarify what would be the best way to achieve balanced distribution cluster memory-wise? Thanks Krzysztof -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Partitioning-on-a-non-uniform-cluster-tp8940.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.