Dmitriy, I also think that we should think about 2.6 as the target.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitriy, > > I doubt we will be able to fit this in 2.5 given that we did not even agree > on the policy interface. Forcing in-memory caches to use baseline topology > will be an easy technical fix, however, we will need to update and probably > fix lots of failover tests, add new ones. > > I think it makes sense to target this change to 2.6. > > 2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh <ilant...@gridgain.com>: > > > Eduard, > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "policy". Is it an interface > > that will have a few default implementations and user will be able to > > create his own one? If so, could you please write an example of such > > interface (how you see it) and how and when it's methods will be invoked. > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Eduard Shangareev < > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Igniters, > > > I have described the issue with current approach in "New definition for > > > affinity node (issues with baseline)" topic[1]. > > > > > > Now we have 2 different affinity topology (one for in-memory, another > for > > > persistent caches). > > > > > > It causes problems: > > > - we lose (in general) co-location between different caches; > > > - we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster; > > > - implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity > > > calculation. > > > > > > So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches. > > > They should all use BLAT. > > > > > > Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the safety > > of > > > in-memory data. > > > It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which was > > > already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or > manually > > if > > > the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2]. > > > > > > And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one > > > (add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay > > > [seconds]). > > > > > > After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so > > on. > > > Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one > > > possible Affinity Topology. > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble. > > com/New-definition-for- > > > affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html > > > [2] > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble. > > > com/Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the- > > > baseline-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Ilya > > >
