Denis, With the approach of Ignite Durable Memory there is no difference between 'memory' and 'disk'. The data is expired from the Ignite data storage which can be persisted or not. Before persistence was introduced, TTL was mostly used when write-through was enabled, otherwise data was cleared from Ignite data storage. Currently, the situation stays the same - if an entry is expired, it is removed from the Ignite storage, which looks absolutely consistent to me.
2018-03-13 21:30 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > Alexey, > > My understanding was that the expiration policies worked for data in RAM > only. Ok, if an expired entry is removed from both RAM and Ignite > persistence then what happens if a cache store is used instead of Ignite > storage? Do we remove expired entries from RDBMs, Cassandra, etc? My guess > that we don't which doesn't look consistent product wide. > > -- > Denis > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Denis, > > > > What do you mean by 'current behavior when data is evicted from the > memory > > only'? TTL expiration effectively means that the corresponding key-value > > pairs are destroyed. If you are talking about page replacement, then > there > > is no way to do this on per-key basis because a page must be replaced as > a > > whole and it makes no sense to track keys. > > > > --AG > > > > 2018-03-13 0:03 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > It will break the current default behavior when data is evicted from > the > > > memory only, and I would disagree that it's a right decision overall. > > > > > > There are many scenarios when users need to have the eviction in the > > memory > > > layer and preserve data on disk for later usage. So, can we keep what > we > > > have now and merely expand the eviction to disk if the user requires > it? > > > > > > -- > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > I suppose there is no configuration will be required. If TTL > configured > > > > entry will be removed from disk & memory both. > > > > > > > > SIncerely, > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > пн, 12 мар. 2018 г. в 23:32, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > > > > > Alexey, Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > What would be the configuration parameter that defines if the > > eviction > > > > > should happen in the in-memory layer only or in both memory and > disk? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Val, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the entries will be removed from both memory and > persistence. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-03-12 19:20 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is behavior going to be after IGNITE-5874 is fixed? Will > > > expired > > > > > > entry > > > > > > > be removed from both memory and persistence? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ticket [1] is in patch available state looks good, the > only > > > > thing > > > > > > > left > > > > > > > > there is to transfer old entries to new storage. I hope > Andrey > > > will > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > time to finish this soon, so we can target the fix for 2.5. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5874 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-03-09 22:51 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to hear Alexey G. opinion on this? Alex, please > > chime > > > > in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In general, the more deployments the persistence will get > the > > > > more > > > > > > > demand > > > > > > > > > we will see for that capability. Personally, I'd create a > > > ticket > > > > > for > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > and put it off to our backlog. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:43 AM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > > > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I know there is no plans. Denis please > correct > > me > > > > if > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But users found these or similar bugs, it seems we need > > to > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > PDS > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > TTL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should either support it or throw a clear exception > on > > > > > startup > > > > > > > > > clearly > > > > > > > > > > stating that it is not. I suppose, it should be the > latter > > > for > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, any chance you can file a ticket for it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
