ignite-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Oliver <mikeolive...@open4businessonline.com>
Subject Re: Ignite caches with separate storage
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:20:45 GMT
I am far from an Ignite expert but I believe the separate Grids is Best and I use that myself.


Mike (MO) Oliver's iPhone 
09479927462

> On 18 Dec 2017, at 6:34 AM, Raymond Wilson <raymond_wilson@trimble.com> wrote:
> 
> I have a use case I’d like to explore with Ignite:
>  
> We have a data ingest pipeline that transforms in bound data into a large collections
of mutable records (stored in an Ignite cache). Changes to this mutable data is relatively
frequent and imposes significant IO updating changes. From those records an immutable projection
is computed which is much smaller from a space perspective (stored in a separate Ignite cache).
>  
> I’d like to have a set of servers responsible for processing and storing the mutable
data set that is independent from a set of servers storing the immutable data projection and
servicing requests against it. In this way I don’t compromise the servers handing requests
with the IO and storage overhead of the mutable data – they care only about the small immutable
data.
>  
> Currently you can configure persistence (or not) on a cache by cache basis, but not storage
(which is configured on a per grid basis in the IgniteConfiguration).
>  
> Assuming that is correct, what is the easiest way to achieve the data separation as described
above
>  
> Two obvious choices are:
>  
> Instantiate two grids and use the persistence configuration to establish the separate
sets of servers. This seems simple to set up and understand.
> Use a single grid, but use affinity mapping to route different caches to different sets
of servers. This seems more complicated.
>  
> Thanks,
> Raymond.
>  

Mime
View raw message