Created the second task by this discussion, IGNITE-14952.
17.06.2021, 14:26, "ткаленко кирилл" :
> Created the first task by this discussion IGNITE-14923.
>
> 13.05.2021, 18:37, "Stanislav Lukyanov" :
>> What I mean by degradation when archive size < min is that, for example,
>> historical rebal
Created the first task by this discussion IGNITE-14923.
13.05.2021, 18:37, "Stanislav Lukyanov" :
> What I mean by degradation when archive size < min is that, for example,
> historical rebalance is available for a smaller timespan than expected by the
> system design.
> It may not be an issue o
What I mean by degradation when archive size < min is that, for example,
historical rebalance is available for a smaller timespan than expected by the
system design.
It may not be an issue of course, especially for a new cluster. If
"degradation" is the wrong word we can call it "non-steady stat
Stan
> If archive size is less than min or more than max then the system
> functionality can degrade (e.g. historical rebalance may not work as
> expected).
Why does the condition "archive size is less than min" lead to system
degradation? Actually, the described case is a normal situation for
Discuss this with Kirill verbally.
Kirill showed me that having the min threshold doesn't quite work.
It doesn't work because we no longer know how much WAL we should remove if we
reach getMaxWalArchiveSize.
For example, say we have minWalArchiveTimespan=2 hours and
maxWalArchiveSize=2GB.
Say,
Stas hello!
I didn't quite get your last idea.
What will we do if we reach getMaxWalArchiveSize? Shall we not delete the
segment until minWalArchiveTimespan?
06.05.2021, 20:00, "Stanislav Lukyanov" :
> An interesting suggestion I heard today.
>
> The minWalArchiveSize property might actually be
An interesting suggestion I heard today.
The minWalArchiveSize property might actually be minWalArchiveTimespan - i.e.
be a number of seconds instead of a number of bytes!
I think this makes perfect sense from the user point of view.
"I want to have WAL archive for at least N hours but I have a
+1 to cancel WAL reservation on reaching getMaxWalArchiveSize
+1 to add a public property to replace
IGNITE_THRESHOLD_WAL_ARCHIVE_SIZE_PERCENTAGE
I don't like the name getWalArchiveSize - I think it's a bit confusing (is it
the current size? the minimal size? the target size?)
I suggest to name
Hello, Kirill
+1 for this change, however, there are too many configuration settings
that exist for the user to configure Ignite cluster. It is better to
keep the options that we already have and fix the behaviour of the
rebalance process as you suggested.
On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 19:01, ткаленко ки
Hi Ilya!
Then we can greatly reduce the user load on the cluster until the rebalance is
over. Which can be critical for the user.
04.05.2021, 18:43, "Ilya Kasnacheev" :
> Hello!
>
> Maybe we can have a mechanic here similar (or equal) to checkpoint based
> write throttling?
>
> So we will be thr
Hello!
Maybe we can have a mechanic here similar (or equal) to checkpoint based
write throttling?
So we will be throttling for both checkpoint page buffer and WAL limit.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
вт, 4 мая 2021 г. в 11:29, ткаленко кирилл :
> Hello everybody!
>
> At the moment, if there ar
Hello everybody!
At the moment, if there are partitions for the rebalance for which the
historical rebalance will be used, then we reserve segments in the WAL archive
(we do not allow cleaning the WAL archive) until the rebalance for all cache
groups is over.
If a cluster is under load during
12 matches
Mail list logo
