Valentin, I am ok with having a policy which prohibits all cache operations, and this is not very hard to implement. Although, I agree with Yakov - I do not see any point in reducing cluster availability when operations can be safely completed.
2018-01-23 2:22 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>: > Val, > > Your suggestion to prohibit any cache operation on partition loss does not > make sense to me. Why should I care about some partition during particular > operation if I don't access it? Imagine I use data on nodes A and B > performing reads and writes and node C crashes in the middle of tx. Should > my tx be rolled back? I think no. > > As far as difference it seems that IGNORE resets lost status for affected > partitions and READ_WRITE_ALL does not. > > * @see Ignite#resetLostPartitions(Collection) > * @see IgniteCache#lostPartitions() > > --Yakov > > 2018-01-17 14:36 GMT-08:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > Folks, > > > > Our PartitionLossPolicy allows to disable operations on lost partitions, > > however all available policies allow any operations on partitions that > were > > not lost. It seems to me it can be very useful to also have a policy that > > completely blocks the cache in case of data loss. Is it possible to add > > one? > > > > And as a side question: what is the difference between READ_WRITE_ALL and > > IGNORE policies? Looks like both allow both read and write on all > > partitions. > > > > -Val > > >
