What is the replacement for FairAffinityFunction? Generally I agree. If FairAffinityFunction can't be changed to provide consistent mapping, it should be dropped.
-Val On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> wrote: > Guys, > > It appeared that our FairAffinityFunction can assign the same partitions to > different nodes for different caches. > > It basically means that there is no collocation between the caches at all > even if they have the same affinity. > > As a result all SQL joins will not work (even collocated ones), other > operations that rely on cache collocation will be either broken or work > slower, than expected. > > All this stuff is really non-obvious. And I see no reason why we should > allow that. I suggest to prohibit this behavior and drop > FairAffinityFunction before 2.0. We have to clearly document that the same > affinity function must provide the same partition assignments for all the > caches. > > Also I know that Taras Ledkov was working on a decent stateless replacement > for FairAffinity, so we should not loose anything here. > > Thoughts? > > Sergi >
