On 19 Jun 2013, at 19:27, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@infinispan.org> wrote:
> On 19 June 2013 17:17, William Burns <mudokon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@infinispan.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 19 June 2013 16:44, cotton-ben <ben.cot...@alumni.rutgers.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> />> At the opposite site, I don't see how - as a user - I could >>>> optimally >>>>>> tune a separate container. >>>> >>>>> I agree that is more difficult to configure, this was one of my points >>>>> as >>>>> both a drawback and benefit. It > sounds like in general you don't >>>>> believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks then./ >>>> >>>> Hi William. The benefits of your ambition to provide L1 capability >>>> enhancements -- for /certain/ user's completeness requirements-- >>>> definitely >>>> outweigh the drawbacks . This is a FACT. >>> >>> I have to disagree ;-) It certainly is a fact that he's very well >>> intentioned to make enhancements, but I don't this strategy is proven >>> the be superior; I'm actually convinced of the opposite. >>> >>> We simply cannot assume that the "real data" and the L1 stored entries >>> will have the same level of hotness, it's actually very likely (since >>> you like stats) that the entries stored in L1 are frequently accessed, >>> to the opposite of other entries which - for as far as we know - could >>> be large and dormant for years. >> >> Actually this is only half true, we know that the values are hot on this >> node specifically. Other nodes could be requesting the "cold" data quite >> frequently as well. > > I see where you're coming from, but my point is the opposite: if other > nodes would be requesting this data quite frequently, it woudln't be > considered "cold": by using a single data container the eviction > strategy automatically takes this into account as well. A hit is a hit > in all senses. > >> This could lead to L1 values pushing out distributed >> data leaving it where nodes have L1 cached values for which the owner >> doesn't even own. > > That's just another excellent reason to keep a unified datacontainer: > if a different node uses the value frequently, allow it to be cached > for read operations, even if the primary owner is passivating it. > Write operations are inherently safe as they have to go through the > owner and trigger entry activation as needed. +1 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
