Example was in my previous letters: if we have in our cluster for cache
group one partition with 2 copies (1 primary and 1 backup) and other
partitions with 4 copies (1 primary and 3 backups), then minimal partition
redundancy level for this cache group will be 2.
Maybe code will be more clear than my description, I think it will be
something like that:
for (int part = 0; part < partitions; part++) {
int partRedundancyLevel = 0;
for (Map.Entry<UUID, GridDhtPartitionMap> entry :
partFullMap.entrySet()) {
if (entry.getValue().get(part) ==
GridDhtPartitionState.OWNING)
partRedundancyLevel++;
}
if (partRedundancyLevel < minRedundancyLevel)
minRedundancyLevel = partRedundancyLevel;
}
2017-11-23 4:04 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>:
> I think you are talking about the case when cluster temporarily gets into
> unbalanced state and needs to rebalance. However, I am still not sure what
> this metric would show. Can you provide an example?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's not about caches.
> > Each partition has certain amount of copies. Amount of copies may differ
> > for different partitions of one cache group.
> >
> > This configuration possible:
> > 1) With custom affinity function
> > 2) When nodes left the cluster, till rebalancing is not finished
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-11-23 0:18 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Alex Plehanov <
> plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > I agree.
> > > >
> > > > By "minimal partition redundancy level for cache group" I mean
> minimal
> > > > number of partition copies among all partitions of this cache group.
> > > > For example, if we have in our cluster for cache group one partition
> > > with 2
> > > > copies (1 primary and 1 backup) and other partitions with 4 copies (1
> > > > primary and 3 backups), then minimal partition redundancy level for
> > this
> > > > cache group will be 2.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Such configuration within the same group would be impossible. All
> caches
> > > within the same group have identical total number of partitions and
> > > identical number of backups. If that is not the case, then they fall
> into
> > > different groups.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> >
>
