I am fine with this javadoc change as long as there is no confusion between Ignite page memory buffers and the OS Virtual Memory concept.
2017-06-01 2:07 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > Igniters, > > With the newly donated persistence functionality in Ignite, I have been > struggling a bit on how to fit the notion of persistence into the current > Ignite interfaces, that are almost completely memory oriented. For example, > abstractions like MemoryConfiguration or MemoryMetrics will now have to > include the persistence context, given that pages will be seamlessly mapped > to disk, whenever the memory fills up (e.g. providing the number of pages > on disk on MemoryMetrics interface). > > After looking around, I have noticed that our architecture is increasingly > beginning to look like the Virtual Memory concept in operating systems [1], > if you consider Ignite off-heap memory to be the physical memory, and disk > to be the secondary memory space. Just like virtual memory, our > architecture is based on memory pages and memory segments. The total set of > all pages constitutes the total virtual memory space. > > If we document our memory interfaces as virtual memory, then we won't have > to do any renaming and can comfortably add disk-based methods to these > interfaces, as it becomes consistent with the virtual memory concept. > > Thoughts? > > [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory >
