Default value for boolean is false, and I though we'll have the feature enabled by default. But I agree with you. Let's disable by default and name the config property EnableAffinityAwareness.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:52 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > For the "false" I mean "disable" here. > > BTW, I believe we should name this parameter in a positive way: > EnableAffinityAwareness, not disable. > > Best Regards, > Igor > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:50 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Well, yes, this looks like a simplest solution. Let's implement it for > the > > beginning and set this feature to "false" by default, as this feature > looks > > complex, probably error-prone, and should be considered in a "beta" > > state for the first release. > > > > Best Regards, > > Igor > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> My suggestion is a boolean flag in client configuration: > >> DisableAffinityAwareness > >> And use old random/round-robin behavior with only one active connection. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:36 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Pavel, > >> > > >> > That's right. Do you have other suggestions or objections? > >> > > >> > Best Regards, > >> > Igor > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:37 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > maxConnectionNumber parameter > >> > > What's the idea? Follow the Best Effor Affinity logic, but establish > >> up > >> > to > >> > > N connections? > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I can propose two improvements here: > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. A simple one. Lets introduce maxConnectionNumber parameter > >> > > > in ClientConfiguration. As it is easy to implement it may be > >> introduced > >> > > > together with the new feature to give user an additional control. > >> > > > > >> > > > 2. Asynchronous connection establishment. In this case startup > >> method > >> > > > of a client returns control to user once it have established at > >> least > >> > one > >> > > > connection. Other connections established in background by a > >> separate > >> > > > thread. This one is harder to implement and maybe it makes sense > to > >> add > >> > > > it as a separate feature. > >> > > > > >> > > > Best Regards, > >> > > > Igor > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:43 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > ptupit...@apache.org > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I'm in progress of implementing this IEP for Ignite.NET, and I > >> have > >> > > > > concerns about the following: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On thin client startup it connects to all nodes provided by > >> client > >> > > > > configuration > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Should we, at least, make this behavior optional? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > One of the benefits of thin client is quick startup/connect time > >> and > >> > > low > >> > > > > resource usage. > >> > > > > Adding "connect all" behavior can negate those benefits, > >> especially > >> > on > >> > > > > large clusters. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thoughts? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:39 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Guys, I've updated the IEP page [1] once again. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Please, pay attention to sections Cache affinity mapping > >> acquiring > >> > > > > > (4.a, format of Cache Partitions Request) and Changes to cache > >> > > > > > operations with single key (3 and 4, algorithm). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Long story short, I've decided to add some additional data to > >> Cache > >> > > > > > Partitions Response, so that client can determine how to > >> calculate > >> > > > > > partition for a given key properly. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > [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 8:24 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > >> > ptupit...@apache.org> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 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. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
