Guys, As a user I definitely do not want to think about BLATs, SATs, DATs, whatsoever. I want to query data, iterate over data, send compute tasks to data. If certain node is outside of BLAT and do not have data, then this is not affinity node. Can we just fix affinity logic to take in count BLAT appropriately?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eduard, > > Can you please summarize code changes that you are proposing? > I agree that BLT is a bit misleading term and DAT/SAT make more sense. > However, establishing a consensus on v2.4 Baseline Topology terminology > took a long time and seems like you are going to cause a bit more > perturbations. > I still don't understand what and how should be changed. Please provide > summary of upcoming class renamings and changes of existing system parts. > > Best Regards, > Ivan Rakov > > > On 24.04.2018 17:46, Eduard Shangareev wrote: > >> Hi, Igniters, >> >> I want to raise a topic about our affinity node definition. >> >> After adding baseline (affinity) topology (BL(A)T) things start being >> complicated. >> >> Plenty of bugs appears: >> >> IGNITE-8173 >> ignite.getOrCreateCache(cacheConfig).iterator() method works incorrect >> for >> replicated cache in case if some data node isn't in baseline >> >> IGNITE-7628 >> SqlQuery hangs indefinitely with additional not registered in baseline >> node. >> >> It's because everything relies on concept "affinity node". >> And until now it was as simple as a server node which passes node filter. >> Other words any server node which is not filtered out by node filter. >> >> But node which is not in BL(A)T and which passes node filter would be >> treated as affinity node. And it's definitely wrong. At least, it is a >> source of many bugs (I believe there are much more than those 2 which I >> already have mentioned). >> >> It's clear that this definition should be changed. >> Let's start with a new definition of "Affinity topology". Affinity >> topology >> is a set of nodes which potentially could keep data. >> >> If we use knowledge about the current realization we can say that 1. for >> in-memory cache groups it would be all server nodes; >> 2. for persistent cache groups it would be BL(A)T. >> >> I will further use Dynamic Affinity Topology or DAT for 1 (in-memory cache >> groups) and Static Affinity Topology or SAT instead BL(A)T, or 2nd point. >> >> Denote node filter as f(X), where X is affinity topology. >> >> Then we can say that node A is affinity node if >> A ∈ AT', where AT' = f(AT), where AT is DAT or SAT. >> >> It worth to mention that AT' should be used to pass to affinity function >> of >> cache groups. >> Also, AT and AT' could change during the time (BL(A)T changes or node >> joins/disconnections). >> >> And I don't like fact that usage of DAT or SAT relies on persistence >> settings (Should we make it configurable per cache group?). >> >> Ok, I have created a ticket to implement this changes and will start >> working on it. >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8380 (Affinity node >> calculation doesn't take into account BLT). >> >> Also, I want to use these definitions (Affinity Topology, Affinity Node, >> DAT, SAT) in documentation and java docs. >> >> Maybe, we also should consider replacing BL(A)T with SAT. >> >> Thank you for your attention. >> >> >
