The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions of operations on
a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan capacity
reasonably.
Sergi
2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of operations, would not
> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance degradation
>
> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>
> > 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values you have read
> > during the tx.
> >
> > For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> >
> > put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> >
> > We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be relatively
> easily
> > encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to implement one to
> > make all this stuff usable.
> >
> > 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily will end up
> with
> > deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for your keys,
> > optimistic approach will work just fine.
> >
> > Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a thread for the
> > lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a lock on the key
> using
> > IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services, wait for all the
> > services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the same thread while
> > keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the Ignite
> > transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic here to be able to
> > read this locked key.
> >
> > But again I do not recommend you using this approach until you have a
> > reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> >
> > Sergi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Yeah, now i got it.
> > > There are some doubts on this approach
> > > 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one altered the
> > > original values, you must check versions of other dependent keys. How
> > could
> > > we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course) ?
> > > 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A introduce changes? So
> no
> > > other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort of pessimistic
> > > blocking)
> > > May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> > >
> > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > Thank you very much for help. I will answer later.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > All the services do not update key in place, but only generate new
> keys
> > > > augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same cache +
> > remember
> > > > the keys and versions participating in the transaction in some
> separate
> > > > atomic cache.
> > > >
> > > > Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents by each
> > > Service:
> > > >
> > > > Initial cache contents:
> > > > [k1 => v1]
> > > > [k2 => v2]
> > > > [k3 => v3]
> > > >
> > > > Cache contents after Service A:
> > > > [k1 => v1]
> > > > [k2 => v2]
> > > > [k3 => v3]
> > > > [k1x => v1a]
> > > > [k2x => v2a]
> > > >
> > > > + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate atomic
> > cache
> > > >
> > > > Cache contents after Service B:
> > > > [k1 => v1]
> > > > [k2 => v2]
> > > > [k3 => v3]
> > > > [k1x => v1a]
> > > > [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > [k3x => v3b]
> > > >
> > > > + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> separate
> > > > atomic cache
> > > >
> > > > Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated keys and
> their
> > > > versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite transaction
> and
> > > > replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from k*x keys.
> The
> > > > successful result must be the following:
> > > >
> > > > [k1 => v1a]
> > > > [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > [k3 => v3b]
> > > > [k1x => v1a]
> > > > [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > [k3x => v3b]
> > > >
> > > > + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> separate
> > > > atomic cache
> > > >
> > > > But Committer Service also has to check that no one updated the
> > original
> > > > values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
> serializability
> > > > guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may need to
> check
> > > not
> > > > only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of any other
> keys
> > > end
> > > > result depends on.
> > > >
> > > > After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be outside of
> the
> > > > committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> > > >
> > > > [k1 => v1a]
> > > > [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > [k3 => v3b]
> > > >
> > > > Makes sense?
> > > >
> > > > Sergi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > - what do u mean by saying "
> > > > > *in a single transaction checks value versions for all the old
> values
> > > > > and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every time you
> > > change
> > > > > value(in some service), you store it to *some special atomic
> > cache*
> > > ,
> > > > so
> > > > > when all services ceased working, Service commiter got a values
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > last versions.
> > > > > - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*" Service
> > > commiter
> > > > > persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> > > > > - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of version
> mismatch
> > or
> > > > TX
> > > > > timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it match?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
> application
> > > > level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following order:
> > > > > > - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] to
> [k1
> > =>
> > > > > v1a,
> > > > > > k2 => v2a]
> > > > > > - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3] to [k2
> > =>
> > > > > v2ab,
> > > > > > k3 => v3b]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The change
> > > > > > from [ k1 => v1, k2 => v2, k3 => v3 ]
> > > > > > to [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > > > > > must happen in a single transaction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a unique
> > > orchestrator
> > > > TX
> > > > > > identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the services.
> If
> > > > `otx`
> > > > > is
> > > > > > set to some value it means that it is an intermediate key and is
> > > > visible
> > > > > > only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key `otx` must
> > be
> > > > > null -
> > > > > > it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a version of
> that
> > > > > value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to use UUID.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Workflow is the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with `otx` = x
> and
> > > > passes
> > > > > > this parameter to all the services.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Service A:
> > > > > > - does some computations
> > > > > > - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a] with TTL = Za
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX duration after
> > > > Service
> > > > > A
> > > > > > end
> > > > > > k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx` = x
> > > > > > v2a has updated version `ver`
> > > > > > - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions to the
> > > > > > orchestrator
> > > > > > or just stores it in some special atomic cache like
> > > > > > [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Service B:
> > > > > > - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it knows `otx`
> =
> > x
> > > > > > - does computations
> > > > > > - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > > > > > - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 ->
> > > ver2,
> > > > k3
> > > > > > -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> > > > > > - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> > > > > > [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > > > > > - in a single transaction checks value versions for all the old
> > > values
> > > > > > and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > > > > > - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > > > > > - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just rollbacks and
> > > signals
> > > > > > to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PROFIT!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This approach even allows you to run independent parts of the
> graph
> > > in
> > > > > > parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one at a
> time).
> > > > Also
> > > > > it
> > > > > > does not require inventing any special fault tolerance technics
> > > because
> > > > > > Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the intermediate
> > > > results
> > > > > > are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in case of any
> > > crash
> > > > > you
> > > > > > will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I mean, we
> can
> > > make
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
> transaction
> > > > yet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > voze...@gridgain.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi already
> > > mentioned,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX state
> over
> > a
> > > > > wire.
> > > > > > > Most
> > > > > > > > probably a kind of coordinator will be required still to
> manage
> > > all
> > > > > > kinds
> > > > > > > > of failures. This task should be started with clean design
> > > proposal
> > > > > > > > explaining how we handle all these concurrent events. And
> only
> > > > then,
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > we understand all implications, we should move to development
> > > > stage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Right
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
> > predefined
> > > > > graph
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > distributed services to be invoked, calls them by some
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > RPC
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible for
> > > > managing
> > > > > > > > business
> > > > > > > > > > > scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in scenarios.
> > They
> > > > > > > exchange
> > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
> > > framework,
> > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing from
> > > Microsoft
> > > > or
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > in-house software?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers which
> > > fulfills
> > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > logic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN process)
> > > which
> > > > > > > > > controlled
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Orchestrator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For instance, *server1 *creates *variable A *with
> > > value
> > > > 1,
> > > > > > > > > persists
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and sends it
> > to*
> > > > > > server2.
> > > > > > > > > *The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > latests receives *variable B*, do some logic with
> it
> > > and
> > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > All the work made by both servers must be fulfilled
> > in
> > > > > *one*
> > > > > > > > > > > transaction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Because we need all information done, or
> > > > > nothing(rollbacked).
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is managed by orchestrator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, it is not a business case, it is your wrong
> > > > solution
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The case is the following, One starts
> transaction
> > > in
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > node,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this transaction in another jvm node(or
> rollback
> > it
> > > > > > > > remotely).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because even if you make it work for some
> > > > simplistic
> > > > > > > > > scenario,
> > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ready
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write many fault tolerance tests and make
> sure
> > > that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > TXs
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gracefully
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in all modes in case of crashes. Also make
> sure
> > > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > performance drops after all your changes in
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe these conditions will be met
> > and
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better solution to what problem? Sending TX
> to
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > > node?
> > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statement itself is already wrong. What
> > business
> > > > case
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > solve? I'm sure everything you need can be
> done
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > efficient way at the application level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why wrong ? You know the better solution?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just serializing TX object and
> > deserializing
> > > it
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningless, because other nodes
> > > participating
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > TX
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the new coordinator. This will require
> > > protocol
> > > > > > > > changes,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definitely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have fault tolerance and performance
> > issues.
> > > > IMO
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and it makes no sense to waste time on
> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > KUZNETSOV
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactionState implememntation
> > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTxEntry's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed to be transferable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32, Dmitriy
> > > > Setrakyan
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds a little scary to me that
> we
> > > are
> > > > > > > passing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around. Such object may contain all
> > sorts
> > > > of
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > context.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs to be passed across, we should
> > > > create a
> > > > > > > > special
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM,
> > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well, there a couple of issues
> > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proceeding.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At first, After transaction
> > > serialization
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deserialization
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > server, there is no txState. So im
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The last one is Deserialized
> > > transaction
> > > > > > lacks
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > shared
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > field at TransactionProxyImpl.
> > Perhaps,
> > > > it
> > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > injected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
> ALEKSEY
> > > > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while starting and continuing
> > > > transaction
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > jvms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serialization exception in
> > > > > > writeExternalMeta
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Override public void
> > > > > > > > writeExternal(ObjectOutput
> > > > > > > > > > out)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > throws
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IOException
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some meta is cannot be
> serialized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 17:25,
> Alexey
> > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I am starting to get what
> > you
> > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concerns:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - What is the API for the
> proposed
> > > > > change?
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > test,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance of transaction created
> on
> > > > > > ignite(0)
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite(1). This is obviously not
> > > > possible
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > truly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - How will you synchronize cache
> > > update
> > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Say, you have one node that
> decided
> > > to
> > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writing within this transaction.
> > How
> > > do
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not call commit() and rollback()
> > > > > > > > simultaneously?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - How do you make sure that
> either
> > > > > > commit()
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > originator failed?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00
> Дмитрий
> > > > Рябов
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my
> initial
> > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transferring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ownership from one node to
> > another
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > happened
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > originating node is gone down.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:36 GMT+03:00
> > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Im aiming to span transaction
> > on
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > threads,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jvms(soon).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > every node is able to
> rollback,
> > > or
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction.It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to transfer tx between
> > nodes
> > > > in
> > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different node(in the same
> > jvm).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 15:20,
> > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean that you want a
> > > > concept
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > transferring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ownership
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one node to another? My
> > initial
> > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to update keys in a
> > transaction
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > threads
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parallel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --AG
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:01 GMT+03:00
> > > > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well. Consider
> transaction
> > > > > started
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > node,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > continued
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following test
> > describes
> > > my
> > > > > > idea:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite ignite1 =
> ignite(0);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactions
> > > > transactions =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite1.transactions();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteCache<String,
> > Integer>
> > > > > cache
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite1.getOrCreateCache("
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > testCache");
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Transaction tx =
> > > > > > > transactions.txStart(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > concurrency,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > isolation);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key1", 1);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key2", 2);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.stop();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > IgniteInternalFuture<Boolean>
> > > > > fut =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GridTestUtils.runAsync(()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ->
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactions
> ts =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite(1).transactions();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Assert.assertNull(ts.tx());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > TransactionState.STOPPED,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ts.txStart(tx);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.ACTIVE,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key3", 3);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertTrue(cache.remove("key2"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.commit();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return true;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > });
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fut.get();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(
> > > > > > > > > > > TransactionState.COMMITTED,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Assert.assertEquals((long)1,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (long)cache.get("key1"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Assert.assertEquals((long)3,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (long)cache.get("key3"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertFalse(cache.
> > > > > > > > > > > containsKey("key2"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In method
> *ts.txStart(...)*
> > > we
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > rebind
> > > > > > > > > > > *tx*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public void
> > > txStart(Transaction
> > > > > > tx) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TransactionProxyImpl
> > > > > > > > > transactionProxy =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (TransactionProxyImpl)tx;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cctx.tm().reopenTx(
> > > > > > > > > > > transactionProxy.tx());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transactionProxy.
> > > > > > > > > bindToCurrentThread();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In method *reopenTx* we
> > alter
> > > > > > > > *threadMap*
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > binds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to current thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do u think about it ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 7 мар. 2017 г. в
> 22:38,
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dma...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please share the
> rational
> > > > > behind
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have in mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2017, at
> 3:19
> > > AM,
> > > > > > > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > > > > > > > KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all! Im designing
> > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node, and continued
> at
> > > > other
> > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > Has
> > > > > > > > > > > > anybody
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > >
> > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > >
> > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > *Best Regards,*
> > >
> > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > >
> >
> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>
