Vladimir, - Data size per-cache
Could you elaborate how the data size per-cache/table task will be addressed with proposed architecture? Are you going to store data of a specific cache in dedicated pages/segments? What's about index size? -- Denis On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:31 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Dima, > > 1) Easy to understand for users > AI 2.x: cluster -> cache group -> cache -> table > AI 3.x: cluster -> cache(==table) > > 2) Fine grained cache management > - MVCC on/off per-cache > - WAL mode on/off per-cache > - Data size per-cache > > 3) Performance: > - Efficient scans are not possible with cache groups > - Efficient destroy/DROP - O(N) now, O(1) afterwards > > "Huge refactoring" is not precise estimate. Let's think on how to do that > instead of how not to do :-) > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org > > > wrote: > > > Vladimir, sounds like a huge refactoring. Other than "cache groups are > > confusing", are we solving any other big issues with the new proposed > > approach? > > > > (every time we try to refactor rebalancing, I get goose bumps) > > > > D. > > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > Cache groups were implemented for a sole purpose - to hide internal > > > inefficiencies. Namely (add more if I missed something): > > > 1) Excessive heap usage for affinity/partition data > > > 2) Too much data files as we employ file-per-partition approach. > > > > > > These problems were resolved, but now cache groups are a great source > of > > > confusion both for users and us - hard to understand, no way to > configure > > > it in deterministic way. Should we resolve mentioned performance issues > > we > > > would never had cache groups. I propose to think we would it take for > us > > to > > > get rid of cache groups. > > > > > > Please provide your inputs to suggestions below. > > > > > > 1) "Merge" partition data from different caches > > > Consider that we start a new cache with the same affinity configuration > > > (cache mode, partition number, affinity function) as some of already > > > existing caches, Is it possible to re-use partition distribution and > > > history of existing cache for a new cache? Think of it as a kind of > > > automatic cache grouping which is transparent to the user. This would > > > remove heap pressure. Also it could resolve our long-standing issue > with > > > FairAffinityFunction when tow caches with the same affinity > configuration > > > are not co-located when started on different topology versions. > > > > > > 2) Employ segment-extent based approach instead of file-per-partition > > > - Every object (cache, index) reside in dedicated segment > > > - Segment consists of extents (minimal allocation units) > > > - Extents are allocated and deallocated as needed > > > - *Ignite specific*: particular extent can be used by only one > partition > > > - Segments may be located in any number of data files we find > convenient > > > With this approach "too many fsyncs" problem goes away automatically. > At > > > the same time it would be possible to implement efficient rebalance > still > > > as partition data will be split across moderate number of extents, not > > > chaotically. > > > > > > Once we have p.1 and p.2 ready cache groups could be removed, couldn't > > > they? > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > >
