On 31 Jan 2014, at 11:59, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@infinispan.org> wrote:
> Generally I like the systems designed with SYNC_DIST + async shared > cachestore. > > It's probably the best setup we can offer: > - you need a shared cachestore for persistence consistency > - using SYNC distribution to other replicas provides a fairly decent > resilience > - if your cachestore needs to be updated in sync, your write > performance will be limited by the cachestore performance: this > prevents you to use Infinispan to buffer, absorbing write spikes, and > reducing write latency Ok, this a limitation of my approach. For such scenarios, you could maybe leave the async store option around, with a note on when the future completes based on this option. > But I agree we should investigate on removing duplicate > "asynchronizations" where they are not needed, there might be some > opportunities to remove thread switching and blocking. > > > On 31 January 2014 10:48, Tristan Tarrant <ttarr...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Couldn't this be handled higher up in our implementatoin then ? >> >> If I enable an async mode, all puts / gets become putAsync/getAsync >> transparently to both the application and to the state transfer. >> >> Tristan >> >> On 01/31/2014 08:32 AM, Dennis Reed wrote: >>> It would be a loss of functionality. >>> >>> As a common example, the AS web session replication cache is configured >>> for ASYNC by default, for performance reasons. >>> But it can be changed to SYNC to guarantee that when the request >>> finishes that the session was replicated. >>> >>> That wouldn't be possible if you could no longer switch between >>> ASYNC/SYNC with just a configuration change. >>> >>> -Dennis >>> >>> On 01/31/2014 01:08 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The following came to my mind yesterday: I think we should ditch ASYNC >>>> modes for DIST/REPL/INV and our async cache store functionality. >>>> >>>> Instead, whoever wants to store something asyncronously should use >>>> asynchronous methods, i.e. call putAsync. So, this would mean that when >>>> you call put(), it's always sync. This would reduce the complexity and >>>> configuration of our code base, without affecting our functionality, and >>>> it would make things more logical IMO. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -- >>>> Galder Zamarreño >>>> gal...@redhat.com >>>> twitter.com/galderz >>>> >>>> Project Lead, Escalante >>>> http://escalante.io >>>> >>>> Engineer, Infinispan >>>> http://infinispan.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com twitter.com/galderz Project Lead, Escalante http://escalante.io Engineer, Infinispan http://infinispan.org _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
