Looks good to me. On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:30 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've updated IEP page: [1] > > What do you think now? To me it looks cleaner. > > [1] - > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients > > Best Regards, > Igor > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:44 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
