Denis,
Thanks for your reply.
My question is not about data locality. As far as I know nodes are
connected in a ring. For example if i have 6 nodes, with names A, B, C, D,
E, and F they can connect in ring any possible way: A-B-C-D-E-F-A, or
A-F-B-E-C-D-A, etc. And if some node falls out of topology neighboring
nodes must reconnect. If nodes A,B and C located in the same physical
location, and D, E and F in another, and in some time one physical location
is not available in another, we can get different number of reconnections.
Best case scenario if we have ring like A-B-CxD-E-FxA ('x' mean disconnect)
-- then we get only one reconnect (C reconnect to A or F reconnect to D --
depending on what part of the cluster we leave alive). But now possible
that case AxFxBxExCxDxA -- then we get a lot of reconnections (A to B, B to
C, C to A -- in general n/2 reconnections, where n -- number of nodes). And
i think to add something to ensure that we always have good sorting of
nodes connections (A-B-C-...-Z-A).
2016-12-20 23:05 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
> Alexander,
>
> CC-ing the dev list to keep everyone in track.
>
> I hope the case you’re talking about can be already implemented by the
> usage of RendezvousAffinityFunction.setAffinityBackupFilter(…) method
> [1]. This method gives you a way to control a locality of your primary and
> backup nodes. Depending on the filter implementation specific nodes might
> end up in one physical location while the rest in the others.
>
> [1] https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.7.0/javadoc/org/
> apache/ignite/cache/affinity/rendezvous/RendezvousAffinityFunction.html
>
> —
> Denis
>
> On Dec 20, 2016, at 7:02 AM, Александр Меньшиков <sharple...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think in near time i will take some "newbie" tickets, but for future
> want to ask about ring topology in Ignite. In case where we have big
> physically stretched claster ring can be not optimal. For example: Node-1
> in 1-physical location, Node-2 in 2-physical location, Node-3 in
> 1-physical location, Node-4 in 2-physical location and ect. So if one
> physical location to fall out of the cluster, we get more breaks in ring
> than the theoretical minimum. I want to add an additional order in the
> process of constructing a ring so that ensure physically close nodes were
> close in topology.
>
> 2016-11-24 0:01 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
>
>> Here are some ticket you may want to start with
>> https://ignite.apache.org/community/contribute.html#pick-ticket
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2016, at 5:33 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Welcome to the Ignite community!
>>
>> Once you are familiar with the contribution process, please see if there
>> is
>> a specific Jira ticket you would like work on. We will help you get
>> started.
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Vladislav Pyatkov <vpyat...@gridgain.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Please read https://ignite.apache.org/community/contribute.html#contribu
>> te
>>
>> Looking forward for your contributions!
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Александр Меньшиков <
>> sharple...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I want to contribute.
>>
>> 2016-11-23 13:04 GMT+03:00 Vladislav Pyatkov <vpyat...@gridgain.com>:
>>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> This is Apache Ignite development community.
>> Are you want to contribute to Ignite or you are have any suggestion?
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Александр Меньшиков <
>> sharple...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
