Vladimir,
we do not lock entries on backups when MVCC is enabled and therefore we
don't avoid entry eviction from backup by locking. So, your first
scenario with primary stop is still relevant.
--
Kind Regards
Roman Kondakov
On 13.12.2018 22:14, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
No, I mean that we should think about what kind of guarantees it possible.
My proposal was to prevent evictions of locked entries. This way we can say
users: "if you want true REPEATABLE_READ when evictions are enabled, then
make sure to lock entries on every access". This effectively means that all
SELECT's should be replaced with "SELECT FOR UPDATE".
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:09 PM Roman Kondakov <kondako...@mail.ru.invalid>
wrote:
Vladimir,
correct me please if i misunderstood your thought. So, if eviction is
not about a consistency at all, we may evict keys in any way because
broken repeatable read semantics is not the biggest problem here. But we
should add some notes about it to user documentation. Right?
--
Kind Regards
Roman Kondakov
On 13.12.2018 17:45, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
Roman,
I would start with the fact that eviction can never be consistent unless
it
utilizes atomic broadcast protocol, which is not the case for Ignite. In
Ignite entries on node are evicted independently.
So you may easily get into situation like this:
1) Start a cache with 1 backup and FULL_SYNC mode
2) Put a key to primary node
3) Stop primary
4) Try reading from new primary and get null because key was evicted
concurrently
Or:
1) Start a transaction in PESSIMISTIC/READ_COMMITTED mode
2) Read a key, get value
3) Read the same key again, get null
So in reality the choice is not between consistent and inconsistent
behavior, but rather about degree of inconsistency. Any solution is
possible as long as we can explain it to the user. E.g. "do not evict a
key
if it is either write-locked".
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:19 PM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
Andrey,
We will not be able to cache the whole data set locally, as it
potentially
lead to OOME. We will have this only as an option and only for non-SQL
updates. Thus, similar semantics is not possible.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:56 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Roman,
We have a ticket to improve repeatable_read mode [1] via caching
entries
locally.
This should make mvcc transaction repeatable_read semantic similar to
non-mvcc Txs
and allow us to implement eviction in correct way.
Another way is to introduce mvcc shared (read) entry locks and evict
only
entries if no one hold any lock on it,
but this looks tricky and error prone as your first one as it may lead
to
eviction policy unexpected behavior,
e.g some versions can be visible while others - no (evicted).
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7371
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello!
Is it possible to 'touch' entries read by MVCC transactions to ensure
that
they are considered recent and therefore are almost never targeted by
eviction?
This is 1) with benefits.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 16:22, Roman Kondakov
<kondako...@mail.ru.invalid
:
Hi igniters,
I need your advice with the following issue. When in-memory cache
reaches it's memory limit, some data may be purged to avoid OOM
error.
This process is described in [1]. For MVCC caches this eviction may
break repeatable read semantics. For example, if transaction reads
key
before eviction, this key is visible for it. But if key is evicted
some
time later, this key become invisible to anyone, including our
transaction, which means broken repeatable read semantics.
Now we see the following solutions of this problem:
1. Ignore broken repeatable read semantics. If cache is set to allow
data eviction, it may lose it's data. This means that there is no
valuable information stored in cache and occasional repeatable read
violations can be tolerated.
2. Prohibit eviction of MVCC caches at all. For example, stop writing
to
caches and throw an appropriate exception in the case when there is
no
free space in page memory. Before this exception Ignite should do
it's
best to avoid this situation, for example, evict all non-mvcc caches
and
run full vacuum to free as much space as possible.
First approach is bad because it leads to cache consistency
violation.
Second approach is bad because it's behavior may be unexpected to
user
if he has set an eviction policy for cache, but instead of eviction
Ignite trying to avoid it as much as possible.
IMO first approach looks better - it is much simpler to implement and
met user expectations in all points except possible repeatable read
violations.
What do you think?
[1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/evictions
--
Kind Regards
Roman Kondakov
--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov
