Or, is flag [1] is actual only for persistence mode? Related ticket [2] is completely about disabled persistence. If previous assumption is right, I think, we can involve flag [1] in ticket [2].
[1] org.apache.ignite.IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_REUSE_MEMORY_ON_DEACTIVATE [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12614 чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 16:10, Vladimir Steshin <vlads...@gmail.com>: > Denis, Alexei, > > Regarding usage of flag > org.apache.ignite.IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_REUSE_MEMORY_ON_DEACTIVATE > [1] > > When enabled, I think the following test should work. But it fails. > > //---------------------------------------------------------------- > @Test > public void testDataPresent() throws Exception { > System.setProperty(IGNITE_REUSE_MEMORY_ON_DEACTIVATE, "true"); > > IgniteEx i = startGrid(0); > > assertFalse( > i.configuration().getDataStorageConfiguration().getDefaultDataRegionConfiguration() > .isPersistenceEnabled() ); > > String name = "non-persistent-cache"; > > i.createCache(name).put(1L, 1L); > > assertEquals(1L, i.cache(name).get(1L)); > > i.cluster().state(ClusterState.INACTIVE); > i.cluster().state(ClusterState.ACTIVE); > > assertEquals(1L, i.cache(name).get(1L)); //Assertion error here! > } > //---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Several notes: > > - IgniteCacheDatabaseSharedManager#reuseMemory > is true > - IgniteCacheDatabaseSharedManager#onDeActivate(boolean shutdown) > is called with shutdown == false > - PageMemoryNoStoreImpl#stop(booleam deallocate) > is called with deallocate == false > > But the cache from the test still has zero size after reactivation. > > Is flag [1] disabled by default because it is not implemented / doesn't > work? Do we need to skip it in current ticket and rise new one? > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:05, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > >> I believe there might be a consistency-related reason why this flag was >> disabled by default for caches that store data in Ignite native >> persistence. I hope, Alex Goncharuk or Scherbakov can shed some light on >> this. >> >> As for the memory-only caches or caches backed up by a CacheStore such as >> an RDBMS, enabling of the flag should be harmless. Once we do this, we'll >> eliminate the need to load the data back into the cluster which can be a >> time-consuming operation depending on the data volume. >> >> >> - >> Denis >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:58 AM Vladimir Steshin <vlads...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Denis, but why reuse-data-on-deactivate was disabled by default? There >> > should be a reason for that. Any data consistency issues when node gets >> > activated anew? We may use both solutions because the flag can be >> switched >> > off again. >> > >> > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 20:47, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: >> > >> > > Hi Vladimir, >> > > >> > > Yes, I'm suggesting us to enable this flag by >> > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_REUSE_MEMORY_ON_DEACTIVATE >> > > default instead of introducing --force flag and showing any warnings. >> > > >> > > - >> > > Denis >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:33 AM Vladimir Steshin <vlads...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hello all. >> > > > >> > > > Denis, which changes exactly? In current implementation of ticket >> [2] >> > > flag >> > > > [1] is checked before requiring --force flag and showing any >> warnings. >> > Do >> > > > we need to set reuse-memory-on-deactivate to true by default? >> > > > >> > > > [1] >> > > > >> > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_REUSE_MEMORY_ON_DEACTIVATE >> > > > >> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12614 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 22:45, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: >> > > > >> > > > > That's the best solution for this scenario. Should we readjust the >> > > > already >> > > > > created ticket [1] suggesting to implement the changes of Alex >> > > Scherbakov >> > > > > instead? >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12614 >> > > > > >> > > > > - >> > > > > Denis >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:54 PM Alexei Scherbakov < >> > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Folks, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > For a long time we have a flag [1] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > It does almost what we want here. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I suggest to make this behavior default and rework it to keep >> data >> > in >> > > > > > memory as well (we already have special "recovery" mode for >> > caches). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> org.apache.ignite.IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_REUSE_MEMORY_ON_DEACTIVATE >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > пн, 3 февр. 2020 г. в 18:47, Alexey Goncharuk < >> > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >> > > > > > >: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I do not mind making this change if we explicitly and clearly >> > > define >> > > > > what >> > > > > > > 'new inactive state' means. What should happen if a partition >> is >> > > lost >> > > > > in >> > > > > > > inactive state? What if such node joins back the cluster >> after? >> > > Etc. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > пт, 31 янв. 2020 г. в 20:57, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Back up Ivan's opinion here. Initially, the >> > > activation/deactivation >> > > > > was >> > > > > > > > created for the baseline topology designed for cases with >> > native >> > > > > > > > persistence. My thinking was that the mechanism itended to >> > > prevent >> > > > > data >> > > > > > > > inconsistencies while nodes with data on the disk will be in >> > the >> > > > > > process >> > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > joining the cluster. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Artem, could you please update the docs bringing this to the >> > > > > attention >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > the user community? >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12615 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > AG, what if we don't purge data from memory at least for the >> > > caches >> > > > > not >> > > > > > > > backed by the native persistence? Is this a big deal? We can >> > > > > certainly >> > > > > > > put >> > > > > > > > this off by my guts feel we'll return to this question >> sooner >> > or >> > > > > later. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - >> > > > > > > > Denis >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:17 AM Ivan Pavlukhin < >> > > > vololo...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > For me it looks like some coincidence effect. I understand >> > that >> > > > we >> > > > > > get >> > > > > > > > > such behavior because deactivation works the same way as >> for >> > > > > > > > > persistent caches. Was cluster activation/deactivation >> > designed >> > > > and >> > > > > > > > > described for in-memory caches? Current behavior sounds >> for >> > me >> > > a >> > > > as >> > > > > > > > > big risk. I expect a lot of upset users unexpectedly >> purged >> > all >> > > > > their >> > > > > > > > > data. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > пт, 31 янв. 2020 г. в 00:00, Alexey Goncharuk < >> > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Because originally the sole purpose of deactivation was >> > > > resource >> > > > > > > > > > deallocation. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > чт, 30 янв. 2020 г. в 22:13, Denis Magda < >> > dma...@apache.org >> > > >: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Such a revelation for me that data is purged from RAM >> if >> > > > > someone >> > > > > > > > > > > deactivates the cluster. Alex, do you remember why we >> > > decided >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > implement >> > > > > > > > > > > it this way initially? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:09 AM Alexey Goncharuk < >> > > > > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree on CLI and JMX because those interfaces can >> be >> > > used >> > > > > by >> > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > system >> > > > > > > > > > > > administrator and can be invoked by mistake. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > As for the Java API, personally, I find it strange >> to >> > add >> > > > > > 'force' >> > > > > > > > or >> > > > > > > > > > > > 'confirm' flags to it because it is very unlikely >> that >> > > such >> > > > > an >> > > > > > > > > invocation >> > > > > > > > > > > > is done by mistake. Such mistakes are caught during >> the >> > > > > testing >> > > > > > > > > phase and >> > > > > > > > > > > > developers will end up hard-coding 'true' as a flag >> > > > anyways. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
