Ok, I understand now. I'll try updating IEP according to this proposal and notify you guys.
Best Regards, Igor On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:27 PM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Igor, > > My idea is simply to add the list of caches with the same distribution to > the end of partition response. Client can use this information to populate > partition info for more caches in a single request. > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:06 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Vladimir, > > > > So correct me if I'm wrong, what you propose is to avoid mentioning > > of cache groups, and use instead of "cache group" term something like > > "distribution"? Or do you propose some changes in protocol? If so, can > > you briefly explain, what kind of changes they are? > > > > Best Regards, > > Igor > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 1:13 PM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Igor, > > > > > > Yes, cache groups are public API. However, we try to avoid new APIs > > > depending on them. > > > The main point from my side is that “similar cache group” can be easily > > > generalized to “similar distribution”. This way we avoid cache groups > on > > > protocol level at virtually no cost. > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > пн, 4 февр. 2019 г. в 12:48, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > Can you explain why do we want to avoid Cache groups in protocol? > > > > > > > > If it's about simplicity of the protocol, then removing cache groups > > will > > > > not help much with it - we will still need to include "knownCacheIds" > > > > field in request and "cachesWithTheSamePartitioning" field in > response. > > > > And also, since when do Ignite prefers simplicity over performance? > > > > > > > > If it's about not wanting to show internals of Ignite then it sounds > > like > > > > a very weak argument to me, since Cache Groups is a public thing [1]. > > > > > > > > [1] - https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cache-groups > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:47 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pavel, Igor, > > > > > > > > > > This is not very accurate to say that this will not save memory. In > > > > > practice we observed a number of OOME issues on the server-side due > > to > > > > many > > > > > caches and it was one of motivations for cache groups (another one > > disk > > > > > access optimizations). On the other hand, I agree that we'd better > to > > > > avoid > > > > > cache groups in the protocol because this is internal > implementation > > > > detail > > > > > which is likely (I hope so) to be changed in future. > > > > > > > > > > So I have another proposal - let's track caches with the same > > affinity > > > > > distribution instead. That is, normally most of PARTITIONED caches > > will > > > > > have very few variants of configuration: it will be Rendezvous > > affinity > > > > > function, most likely with default partition number and with 1-2 > > > backups > > > > at > > > > > most. So when affinity distribution for specific cache is > requested, > > we > > > > can > > > > > append to the response *list of caches with the same distribution*. > > > I.e.: > > > > > > > > > > class AffinityResponse { > > > > > Object distribution; // Actual distribution > > > > > List<Integer> cacheIds; // Caches with similar distribution > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > Makes sense? > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:31 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > ptupit...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Igor, I have a feeling that we should omit Cache Group stuff from > > the > > > > > > protocol. > > > > > > It is a rare use case and even then dealing with them on client > > > barely > > > > > > saves some memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can keep it simple and have partition map per cacheId. > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:49 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, I've updated the proposal once again [1], so please, > > > > > > > take a look and let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 1:05 PM Igor Sapego < > isap...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I'll add it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:08 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > to every server > > > > > > > >> I did not think of this issue. Now I agree with your > approach. > > > > > > > >> Can you please add an explanation of this to the IEP? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Thanks! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 2:53 PM Igor Sapego < > > isap...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Pavel, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Yeah, it makes sense, but to me it seems that this > approach > > > can > > > > > lead > > > > > > > >> > to more complicated client logic, as it will require to > make > > > > > > > additional > > > > > > > >> > call > > > > > > > >> > to every server, that reports affinity topology change. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Guys, WDYT? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Best Regards, > > > > > > > >> > Igor > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:59 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Igor, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > It is proposed to add flag to every response, that > > shows > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > >> > > Affinity Topology Version of the cluster has changed > since > > > the > > > > > > last > > > > > > > >> > request > > > > > > > >> > > from the client. > > > > > > > >> > > I propose to keep this flag. So no need for periodic > > checks. > > > > > Makes > > > > > > > >> sense? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:45 PM Igor Sapego < > > > > isap...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Pavel, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > This will require from client to send this new request > > > > > > > periodically, > > > > > > > >> > I'm > > > > > > > >> > > > not > > > > > > > >> > > > sure this will make clients simpler. Anyway, let's > > discuss > > > > it. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > With current proposal, we will have affinity info in > > > message > > > > > > > header. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > >> > > > Igor > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:01 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > >> voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Igor, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I think that "Cache Partitions Request" should > contain > > > > > > affinity > > > > > > > >> > > topology > > > > > > > >> > > > > version. Otherwise we do not know what distribution > is > > > > > > returned > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > >> > > one > > > > > > > >> > > > > we expected, or some newer one. The latter may > happen > > in > > > > > case > > > > > > > >> > topology > > > > > > > >> > > > > changed or late affinity assignment happened between > > > > server > > > > > > > >> response > > > > > > > >> > > and > > > > > > > >> > > > > subsequent client partitions request. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:08 PM Igor Sapego < > > > > > > isap...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hello guys, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I've updated IEP page [1] describing proposed > > solution > > > > in > > > > > > more > > > > > > > >> > > details > > > > > > > >> > > > > and > > > > > > > >> > > > > > proposing some changes for a protocol. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Please, take a look and let me know what you > think. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:54 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > >> > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yes, in principle we can extend it. We are going > > to > > > > > > > implement > > > > > > > >> it > > > > > > > >> > in > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > subsequent phases of this IEP. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Dmitriy > > Setrakyan < > > > > > > > >> > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Denis Magda > < > > > > > > > >> > dma...@apache.org > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Feel that this functionality can be extended > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > >> automatic > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > reconnect, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > can't it? Presently we require to provide a > > > static > > > > > > list > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > >> > IPs > > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > > >> > > > > be > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > used > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > at a reconnect time. By having a partition > map > > > of > > > > > all > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> > > nodes, > > > > > > > >> > > > > the > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thin > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client should be able to automate this > piece. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Not sure if static IP list can be avoided. > What > > > Igor > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> > > suggesting > > > > > > > >> > > > is > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > we try to pick the best node out of the static > > IP > > > > > list. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
