Is there a ticket about supporting multiple thread pools? I wanted to leave some design thoughts on this subject, but can't see to find the appropriate ticket for it.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree with Val, we already have multiple pools support, the only thing we > should take care about is backward compatibility, when new node sends > message to an old one which does not have a needed pool yet. We can handle > it manually each time, but I prefer just to fallback to some default pool > in old nodes to avoid complexity. > > Sergi > On Jul 31, 2015 10:50 AM, "Valentin Kulichenko" < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Sergi Vladykin < > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > We had a problem with thread starvation in PUBLIC pool because of > > queries > > > > as described in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1174 > > > > > > > > I switched it to SYSTEM pool but this can cause delays for other > cache > > > > operations like put/get if we have many long running queries. > > > > > > > > I propose adding one more thread pool for queries to make them > > > independent. > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea, however, I think the design should be more generic. I > > > think Ignite should be able to have N thread pools. Then for each set > of > > > operations, e.g. task-execution, message-replies, query-processing, > etc. > > > user should be able to assign any of the available N thread-pools. This > > can > > > be done in the configuration. > > > > > > > We actually already have similar design for plugins (see IoPool > extension). > > I think we can reuse it for all pools in the system. > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > > > > > >
