"The best way" (to use Ignite as a centralized cache) unfortunately leads to "it depends."
There's many different styles of cache. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/write-through-and-write-back-in-cache/ There's cache-aside, where you "memoize" your getters and setters so that getters try Ignite, and if that doesn't have the data, then try the primary storage, and setters write to both. Ignite supports using an external data source like other databases to implement some of these. Ignite supports partition level redundancy to provide node level or even availability-zone level fault tolerance. Set your cache backups=1 to get duplicated data on separate nodes. Use backup filters to segment the primary and backup partitions across multiple AZs. https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/configuring-caches/configuring-backups https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/cache/affinity/rendezvous/ClusterNodeAttributeAffinityBackupFilter.html On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:35 AM John Smith <java.dev....@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, near cache. > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:01 PM Jeremy McMillan <j...@gridgain.com> wrote: > >> When you say "local" cache, do you actually mean "near cache"? >> https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/configuring-caches/near-cache >> >> If this is the case, I'd be interested to understand what would be lost >> if, hypothetically, you switched to using thin clients and operation >> without "near cache." >> >> If not, I suspect your architecture will likely dictate needing upgrade >> downtime for maintenance involving the whole cluster (like version >> upgrades). If you can live with that, you'll be OK. If you can't afford >> downtime, maybe compare the implied cost of downtime against the cost of >> commercial options. >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 1:46 PM John Smith <java.dev....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Actually the biggest feature we use is the "local" cache, where data is >>> collocated/cached on the client. >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 2:33 PM John Smith <java.dev....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hummmm whats the best way to use Ignite as a central cache server then? >>>> Cause We have quite a few thick clients so we can't just shut down >>>> everything. Also, Blue/Green is prohibitively expensive (mostly >>>> architecture and then "hardware resources") even with Ignite. >>>> >>>
