Of course! 1. Yes, it is a part of the task. Documentation is about to be placed at readmeIo under 1.6 version. 2. No, but both those calls are near in the GridDhtTopologyExchangeFuture#validateCache. 3. Yes, sure. As far as I understand, main purpose of the IGNITE-1605 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1605> is to implement necessary infrastructure for handling lost partitions and thus only first to edge DataLossPolicy is planned: FAIL_OPS and NOOP. Nonetheless, we a going to add more different DataLossPolicy during next tickets, but I'm not aware of the release version for them. It could be 1.6 or later. <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1605>
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Vladimir! > > I have a few questions: > > 1. Is this being documented? > 2. Is this part of the topology validator? > 3. Are we going to block reads and writes or only writes? Ideally, user > should be able to configure either. > > D. > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Vladimir Ershov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dmitriy, > > I've added new GridDhtPartitionState.LOST state for partitions that were > > lost, and also new CacheConfiguration property - DataLossPolicy. If > > DataLossPolicy is FAIL_OPS, then all lost partitions get LOST state, and > > all actions for any keys on those lost partitions throw exception, until > > lost partition state is not reset by *resetLostPartitions*. > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > Can you please describe what this method will be doing? I am note sure > I > > > understand what resetting state of the lost partition means. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Vladimir Ershov <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Igniters! > > > > > > > > Since we are going to add stronger data loss check IGNITE-1605 > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1605> I'm about to add > > new > > > > method for the manual resetting state of the lost partition in > > > IgniteCache > > > > IgniteFuture<?> *resetLostPartitions*(); > > > > just near #rebalance(). > > > > > > > > And would like to ask the community: Does *resetLostPartitions > *naming > > > > sound good? > > > > Thoughts appreciated, > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > >
