Vladimir, In theory, we can add node filter for the corresponding atomics system cache in AtomicConfiguration. In practice, I do not see how this is useful unless you limit the node filter to a single node. A lock/semaphore is represented by a single cache key, so it cannot be collocated with more than one node. In your example this would mean that all but one services would work with a non-collocated instance of Lock. The difference would become substantial if you used millions instances of Locks.
As a separate note - usually it's better off using pessimistic transactions than locks for obvious reasons. пт, 31 янв. 2020 г. в 19:21, Vladimir Steshin <vlads...@gmail.com>: > Folks, who knows if there are restrictions to add node filter for > distributed Semaphore/Lock? I want to suggest this feature. > > I met a case in personal experience: some grid services were filtered by > nodes and launched over a logical sub-cluster. The services worked with > caches being held in the same sub-cluster: the caches had the same node > filter. I found that a distributed lock might be handy for the task I was > doing. A distributed lock using within these grid services. No matter what > the task was. It might be done without lock too. But I wandered I could not > place the lock in the same sub-cluster. Other nodes, outer to that > sub-cluster, should not held the lock at all. > > It looks strange to me. I believe most object run over caches. Caches can > be configured with node filters. I think almost every object might be > filtered where to keep it. > > > > Any ideas? >
