Anton,
This seems to be a completely separate issue. I don't see how it can be
fixed by adding new APIs.
-Val
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> Val,
>
> AFAIK, affinityRun/Call has guarantee to be successfully executed on
> unstable topology in case partition was not losed, only relocated to
> another node during rebalancing.
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Alexey,
> >
> > Is there exact use case that is currently not supported? I really would
> > like to see one, because such a big API change should add clear value.
> > ComputeGrid is not used very often, and so far I've never seen any
> > questions from users about using it in conjunction with affinity
> > collocation.
> >
> > What if we solve this on job level instead by adding the following
> > interface:
> >
> > interface AffinityComputeJob extends ComputeJob {
> > String cacheName();
> > Object affinityKey();
> > }
> >
> > Whenever load balancer sees this job, it maps it based on affinity. Will
> > this work?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Anton,
> > >
> > > How does topology change break this functionality? Closures executed
> with
> > > affinityRun/Call fail over in the same way as any ComputeJob.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alexei,
> > >>
> > >> > How would task know the partition it is running over ?
> > >> Not sure it necessary.
> > >> You'll create pair partition-job at task's map phase.
> > >>
> > >> > How can I assign task for each cache partition ?
> > >> Just implement map method generates map with size equals to partition
> > >> count.
> > >>
> > >> > How can I enforce partition reservation if task works with multiple
> > >> caches at once ?
> > >> This possible only in case caches use safe affinity function.
> > >> And it useful only it this case.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Please read job instead task
> > >> >
> > >> > 2017-07-25 15:20 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > >> > >:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Main point of the issue is to provide clean API for working with
> > >> > > computations requiring data collocation
> > >> > >
> > >> > > affinityCall/Run provide the ability to run closure near data, but
> > >> > > map/reduce API is a way reacher: continuous mapping, task session,
> > >> etc.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > As for proposed API, I do not understand fully how it solves the
> > >> problem.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Maxim, please provide detailed javadoc for each method and each
> > >> argument
> > >> > > for presented API, and the answers to the following questions:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 1. How would task know the partition it is running over ?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2. How can I assign task for each cache partition ?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 3. How can I enforce partition reservation if task works with
> > multiple
> > >> > > caches at once ?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2017-07-25 12:30 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <
> > avinogra...@gridgain.com
> > >> >:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Val,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Sure, we can, but we'd like to use map/reduce without fearing
> that
> > >> > >> topology
> > >> > >> can change.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > Anton,
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > You can call affinityCallAsync multiple times and then reduce
> > >> locally.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > -Val
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > >> > >> > avinogra...@gridgain.com>
> > >> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > Val,
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > What is the use case for which current affinityRun/Call API
> > >> > doesn't
> > >> > >> > work?
> > >> > >> > > It does not work for map/reduce.
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > >> > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > Maxim,
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > The issue is that it's currently assumed to support job
> > >> mapping,
> > >> > >> but it
> > >> > >> > > > actually doesn't. However, I agree that AffinityKeyMapped
> > >> > annotation
> > >> > >> > > > doesn't fit the use case well. Let's fix documentation and
> > >> JavaDoc
> > >> > >> > then.
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > As for the proposed API, it's overcomplicated, took me 15
> > >> minutes
> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > > > understand what it does :)
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > What is the use case for which current affinityRun/Call API
> > >> > doesn't
> > >> > >> > work?
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > -Val
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Kozlov Maxim <
> > >> > dreamx....@gmail.com
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > Valentin,
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > The author of tiket wants to see to provide some API
> allows
> > >> to
> > >> > map
> > >> > >> > > > > ComputeJobs to partitions or keys. If we use
> > >> @AffinityKeyMapped
> > >> > >> then
> > >> > >> > > you
> > >> > >> > > > > need to enter the cache name parameter, I think this is
> not
> > >> > >> > convenient
> > >> > >> > > > for
> > >> > >> > > > > the user. Therefore, I propose to extend the existing
> API.
> > >> > >> > > > > Having consulted with Anton V. decided to make a separate
> > >> > >> interface
> > >> > >> > > > > ReducibleTask, which will allow us to have different map
> > >> logic
> > >> > at
> > >> > >> > each
> > >> > >> > > > > inheritor.
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > Old method, allows to map to node
> > >> > >> > > > > public interface ComputeTask<T, R> extends
> > ReducibleTask<R> {
> > >> > >> > > > > @Nullable public Map<? extends ComputeJob,
> ClusterNode>
> > >> > >> > > > > map(List<ClusterNode> subgrid, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> > >> > IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > Brand new method with mapping to partitions, which solves
> > >> > topology
> > >> > >> > > change
> > >> > >> > > > > issues.
> > >> > >> > > > > public interface AffinityComputeTask<T, R> extends
> > >> > >> ReducibleTask<R> {
> > >> > >> > > > > @Nullable public Map<? extends ComputeJob, Integer>
> > >> > >> > > > map(@NotnullString
> > >> > >> > > > > cacheName, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> > >> > > > IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > public interface ReducibleTask<R> extends Serializable {
> > >> > >> > > > > public ComputeJobResultPolicy result(ComputeJobResult
> > >> res,
> > >> > >> > > > > List<ComputeJobResult> rcvd) throws IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > @Nullable public R reduce(List<ComputeJobResult>
> > results)
> > >> > >> throws
> > >> > >> > > > > IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > We also need to implement AffinityComputeTaskAdapter and
> > >> > >> > > > > AffinityComputeTaskSplitAdapter, for implementation by
> > >> default.
> > >> > >> It
> > >> > >> > is
> > >> > >> > > > > right?
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > In the IgniteCompute add:
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > @IgniteAsyncSupported
> > >> > >> > > > > public <T, R> R affinityExecute(Class<? extends
> > >> > >> > AffinityComputeTask<T,
> > >> > >> > > > R>>
> > >> > >> > > > > taskCls, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> > >> > > IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > > @IgniteAsyncSupported
> > >> > >> > > > > public <T, R> R affinityExecute(AffinityComputeTask<T,
> R>
> > >> task,
> > >> > >> > > > > List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > public <T, R> ComputeTaskFuture<R>
> > >> affinityExecuteAsync(Class<?
> > >> > >> > extends
> > >> > >> > > > > AffinityComputeTask<T, R>> taskCls, List<Integer>
> partIds,
> > >> > >> @Nullable
> > >> > >> > T
> > >> > >> > > > arg)
> > >> > >> > > > > throws IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > > public <T, R> ComputeTaskFuture<R> affinityExecuteAsync(
> > >> > >> > > > AffinityComputeTask<T,
> > >> > >> > > > > R> task, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> > >> > > IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > How do you like this idea or do you insist that you need
> to
> > >> use
> > >> > >> > > > > @AffinityKeyMapped to solve the problem?
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > 13 июля 2017 г., в 6:36, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > >> > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> написал(а):
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > Hi Max,
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > This ticket doesn't assume any API changes, it's about
> > >> broken
> > >> > >> > > > > > functionality. I would start with checking what tests
> we
> > >> have
> > >> > >> > > > > > for @AffinityKeyMapped and creating missing one. From
> > what
> > >> I
> > >> > >> > > understand
> > >> > >> > > > > > functionality is broken completely or almost
> completely,
> > >> so I
> > >> > >> guess
> > >> > >> > > > > testing
> > >> > >> > > > > > coverage is very weak there.
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > -Val
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Kozlov Maxim <
> > >> > >> > dreamx....@gmail.com>
> > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> Igniters,
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> jira: https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/IGNITE-5037
> > <
> > >> > >> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5037>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> How do you look to solve this ticket by adding two
> > >> methods to
> > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > public
> > >> > >> > > > > >> IgniteCompute API?
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> @IgniteAsyncSupported
> > >> > >> > > > > >> public void affinityRun(@NotNull Collection<String>
> > >> > cacheNames,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> Collection<Object> keys, IgniteRunnable job)
> > >> > >> > > > > >> throws IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> @IgniteAsyncSupported
> > >> > >> > > > > >> public <R> R affinityCall(@NotNull Collection<String>
> > >> > >> cacheNames,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> Collection<Object> keys, IgniteCallable<R> job)
> > >> > >> > > > > >> throws IgniteException;
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> There is also a question of how to act when changing
> the
> > >> > >> topology
> > >> > >> > > > during
> > >> > >> > > > > >> the execution of the job.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> 1) complete with an exception;
> > >> > >> > > > > >> 2) stop execution and wait until the topology is
> rebuilt
> > >> and
> > >> > >> > > continue
> > >> > >> > > > > >> execution;
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> I think the second way, do you think?
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> --
> > >> > >> > > > > >> Best Regards,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> Max K.
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > >> > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> > >> > > > > Max K.
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Best regards,
> > >> > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> >
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
