On 19 Jun 2013, at 16:19, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@infinispan.org> wrote:
> On 19 June 2013 13:44, William Burns <mudokon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> All the L1 data for a DIST cache is stored in the same data container as the >> actual distributed data itself. I wanted to propose breaking this out so >> there is a separate data container for the L1 cache as compared to the >> distributed data. >> >> I thought of a few quick benefits/drawbacks: >> >> Benefits: >> 1. L1 cache can be separately tuned - L1 maxEntries for example > > -1! > I don't think thats a benefit actually, from the point of view of a user: > as a user I only know I have a certain amount of memory available on > each node, and the application is going to use certain data way more > often than others. > The eviction strategy should be put in condition to be able to make an > optimal choice about which entries - among all - are better kept in > memory vs. passivated. > I don't see a specific reason to "favour" keeping in memory owned > entries over an L1 entry: the L1 entry might be very hot, and the > owned entry might be almost-never read. > Considering that even serving a Get operation to another node (as > owners of the entry) makes the entry less likely to be passivated (it > counts as a "hit"), the current design naturally provides an optimal > balance for memory usage. > > At the opposite site, I don't see how - as a user - I could optimally > tune a separate container. Very good points Sanne. Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
