Alex, I am against reducing cluster operation. I tried to explain in the prev email that it is impossible to have consistent approach here. You can prohibit operations only after exchange completes. However, in this case plenty of transactions are committed on previous cache topology having nodes they do not touch crashed/left the grid.
--Yakov 2018-01-23 9:28 GMT-08:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: > 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 > > > > > >
