Guys, I have started a new topic to address the issue with DAT [1].
[1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-4-Phase-2-Using-BL-A-T-for-in-memory-caches-td29942.html On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Right, as far as I understand we are not arguing on whether BLT is needed > > or not. The main questions are how to properly deliver this feature to > > users and how to deal with co-location issues between persistent and > > non-persistent caches. Looks like change policies are the way to go for > the > > first question. > > > > As far as co-location, it is important to note that different affinity > > distribution for in-memory and persistent caches automatically means that > > we loose SQL joins and predictable behavior of any affinity-based > > operations. It means that if we calculated the same affinity for > persistent > > and in-memory caches at some point, we cannot re-distribute in-memory > > caches differently if some nodes go down without breaking co-located > > computations, am I right? > > > > Vova, you are right, but this is rather an edge case. I doubt there are > many users out there who will need to join memory-only with persistent > caches. What you are describing would be nice to support, but I would not > make it a hard requirement. However, if we choose not to support it, we > should have a very good explanation for why not. >
