Hi, Igniters! I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17 because of change messages formats. In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host services with the same name, but with different class/version, we should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle instead of service’s name. Thoughts? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069 On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 3:51 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > > Anton, clients could be remote, not local. However, even if I agreed with > you, we cannot remove the current functionality from the product. > > As suggested, by default services are deployed only on server nodes. If a > user wants to involve client nodes, then it should be done by specifying a > node filter. This is how the system works today. Let's not change it for no > good reason. > > D. > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:31 AM, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Denis, > > > > Main features of Ignite Cache are availability and throughput. > > > > I'd like to refactor Serviсe Grid to be the same. > > Main feature should be guarantee of availability and throughput (instance > > count). > > > > Client should ask grid to execute the service, that's all. No matter how > > grid will do this. > > This should be like cache 'put' or 'get' call. > > > > In case you want to execute something locally you should just implement it > > inside your application rather than deploy it to Ignite Cluster. > > There are absolutely no reason to mix local services and Service Grid. > > > > P.s. As for me, all "local" features should be deprecated, since we're > > distributed. > > > > чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 21:13, Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > I believe, there are cases, when people want to have node singleton > > > services, that are deployed to clients, as well as to all other nodes. > > > And currently clients can execute compute jobs, issued by other clients, > > > and services are not very different from them. > > > Clients may store data and run code. We shouldn't consider them as > > > "end-user nodes". Only thin clients should be run by end users. > > > > > > But I agree, that we shouldn't encourage people to use services this way. > > > So, if it doesn't complicate the implementation too much, then a warning > > in > > > log will be enough, I think. > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 19:56, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > I don't think that it's a good idea to host services on client nodes. > > > > Client topology is not stable enough, and I don't see how to guarantee > > > > availability of such services. > > > > We'll have huge problems to guarantee availability in case of blinking > > > > clients. > > > > > > > > Also, taking into account that ignite cluster can have more that one > > user > > > > it looks odd that one user able to start service at another user's > > > hardware > > > > (bitcoin miners can be disagree with me). > > > > > > > > In case you want to use nodes only to host services - all you need is > > to > > > > filter them from cache affinity functions. > > > > > > > > I propose to implement Services pretty close to Cache implementation. > > > > It's a bad idea to reinvent the weel there. > > > > Let's just analyse Cache's code and do the same for services with same > > > > guarantee. > > > > > > > > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 21:58, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > Denis, long service initialization isn't a big problem for us. > > > > > > > > > > The problem is hung initialization, that means the service deployment > > > > > will never complete. > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:08 PM Denis Mekhanikov < > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, that this timeout shouldn't be mandatory, and it should be > > > > > > disabled by default. > > > > > > We should be ready for long service initialization. So, it > > shouldn't > > > be > > > > > > done in any crucial threads like discovery or exchange. > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 15:59, Vyacheslav Daradur < > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI, I've filled the tickets: > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9075 > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9076 > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:54 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service > > level. > > > > > Can we > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy > > > > > method? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible > > solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to > > continue > > > > > > > operating > > > > > > > > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it > > > > > > > automatically. If > > > > > > > > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully > > > > > printing > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is > > no > > > > > magic > > > > > > > > > happening that is hidden from users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A service will be able to work till topology's change after > > that > > > we > > > > > > > > have to recalculate assignments and at this moment we won't > > > > determine > > > > > > > > suitable nodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will fill new tickets to work on these questions and to > > > implement > > > > > > > > solutions in the second iteration if nobody doesn't mind. > > > > > > > > Anyway, it will have been done to a release. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan > > > > > > > > <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, please help me to clarify the following > > questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services > > > > > > > deployment > > > > > > > > > > results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor > > > > > > > > > > Service#init method completion. > > > > > > > > > > How should we handle Service#init method hangup? > > > > > > > > > > I propose to introduce some kind of > > > > > > > > > > IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_SERVICE_INIT_TIMEOUT to > > > interrupt > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > > initialization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service > > level. > > > > > Can we > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy > > > > > method? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Should we automatically undeploy services, which had > > been > > > > > deployed > > > > > > > > > > using #deployKeyAffinitySingleton, on destroying of related > > > > > > > IgniteCache? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to > > continue > > > > > > > operating > > > > > > > > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it > > > > > > > automatically. If > > > > > > > > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully > > > > > printing > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is > > no > > > > > magic > > > > > > > > > happening that is hidden from users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392 > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:01 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we will preserve this behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By default the client nodes should be excluded form > > > service > > > > > > > > > > deployment. The > > > > > > > > > > > > only way to include clients is to explicitly specify > > them > > > > > > > through node > > > > > > > > > > > > filter. This is how services are deployed today and we > > > > should > > > > > > > preserve > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov < > > > > > > > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, > > since > > > > it > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > interfere with the IEP? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in > > log, > > > > > that a > > > > > > > > > > service is > > > > > > > > > > > > > deployed on a client node. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the > > > > current > > > > > > > stage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But we will have to change assignment function to > > > > forbid > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even if configuration's node filter resolves them > > it > > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transparent for the end user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the only use case to have such behavior is: > > > > > hosting > > > > > > > of not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > collocated services on data free nodes with access > > to > > > > > > > IgniteCaches > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote nodes in the same cluster. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov < > > > > > > > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think, that client nodes, that host > > > services > > > > > make > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may > > be > > > > > useful? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation > > > > > somehow? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm > > > > > going to > > > > > > > > > > request a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review in a couple weeks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a question about the new design: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current implementation of Service Grid > > > doesn't' > > > > > take > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > account > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignition#client(true). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means that *clients* nodes are able to host > > > > > services. > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some tests that expect such behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Services assignments are managed by a predicate > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate< > > > > > > > > > > ClusterNode>). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden > > > or > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > shouldn't mix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy > > > Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav > > > > > Daradur < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be > > > implemented > > > > > once > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > main > > > > > > > > > > > > > tasks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be completed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awesome! This is a huge addition to the > > > project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy > > > > > Setrakyan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about service redeployment in case if > > > > user > > > > > > > wants to > > > > > > > > > > update > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this planned? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
