Vladimir,
*DataRegionMetrics* is for former memory metrics.
*DataStorageMetrics* will contain metrics about persistence.
If DataStorageMetrics is ok, let's go this way.
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 01.10.2017 15:19, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
We merged memory and persistence on config level. So we should merge
metrics in the same way. DataRegionMetrics is absolutely normal name, even
if it contains only persistence-related stuff at the moment.
вс, 1 окт. 2017 г. в 14:41, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>:
Denis,
1) You're right. I forgot to include the main flag in
DataRegionConfiguration - *isPersistenceEnabled*. Persistence will be
enabled globally if at least one memory region has this flag set.
Regarding default data region, I've added
*isDefaultDataRegionPersistenceEnabled *to the DataStorageConfiguration.
Check the design draft again.
2) Of course, we have to maintain API compatibility. Deprecating old
classes and introducing new is just what I meant.
3) We can't do that - MemoryMetrics are calculated per memory policy and
PersistenceMetrics are calculated globally. It's a major change to
implement it another way.
By the way, let's assure the namings for new metrics classes.
DataRegionMetrics instead of MemoryMetrics looks fine.
About PersistenceMetrics - name "*DataStorageMetrics*" is not fair
enough as it will contain only metrics of persistent storage. Probably
*DataStoragePersistenceMetrics*,*PersistentDataStorageMetrics *or even
keeping *PersistenceMetrics* are better.
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 29.09.2017 21:12, Denis Magda wrote:
Ivan,
Several questions/concerns:
1. Looking at the new API I can’t grasp how to enable the persistence.
First, how can I enable it globally if there is only one default data
region defined. Second, how do I enable it per data region. Can’t find any
related switches in the draft.
2. We cannot renamed anything like you’re suggesting to do for
MemoryMetrics and their beans. We have to deprecate old and introduce new.
3. I think we should merge Memory and Persistence Metrics into
DataStorageMetrics for clarity.
—
Denis
On Sep 29, 2017, at 6:29 AM, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Guys,
I've attached new configuration design draft to the ticket description:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6030
Please, take a look. Right now is the best time to change name of any
property.
And question about metrics: are we going to rename MemoryMetrics and
PersistenceMetrics respectively (along with their MBeans)?
It's not a problem to implement it at all. The only thing that concerns
me is that we have to keep deprecated old classes in the codebase. Perhaps,
MemoryMetrics/PersistenceMetrics are intuitive enough.
On 29.09.2017 3:16, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
StorageRegion sounds like bad English to me.
I would go with DataStorageConfiguration and DataRegionConfiguration.
D.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com
wrote:
Guys,
But what is exact desicion? :-) I saw two final options:
1) StorageConfiguration + StorageRegionConfiguration
2) DataStorageConfiguration + DataRegionConfiguration
Which one we choose?
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>
wrote:
I guess it is safe to assume that at this point we came to a
consensus?
Alex, I think so. Let's carve it in stone (code).
--Yakov
