Agreed then. Let's update the javadoc and documentation. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <[email protected] > wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]>: > > > 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 > > >
