Updated the javadoc and existing 2.0 documentation (decided to leave the url of the doc unchanged - there are many references to it): https://apacheignite.readme.io/v2.0/docs/page-memory <https://apacheignite.readme.io/v2.0/docs/page-memory>
- Denis > On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>> >>
