[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-9149?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Darrel Schneider updated GEODE-9149:
------------------------------------
Labels: GeodeOperationAPI (was: )
> partition region distributed expiration actions are not distributed if the
> region has evict destroy
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GEODE-9149
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-9149
> Project: Geode
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: eviction, expiration
> Reporter: Darrel Schneider
> Priority: Major
> Labels: GeodeOperationAPI
>
> If a partitioned region is configured with evict destroy and with distributed
> expiration, then the expiration action is no longer distributed but is a
> local operation performed independently on the primary and each secondary.
> This can lead to partitioned regions that give inconsistent read results. For
> example a get op can be sent to primary or any secondary so it may exist on
> one but not another.
> Changing these distributed expiration actions to be local was a choice made
> about 11 years ago to deal with the fact that evict destroy does local
> destroys that can also cause the cache to be inconsistent. If the evict
> destroy was done on the primary then it caused the secondary entries to never
> expire (since normally all expiration on a pr is driven from the primary).
> But even though we needed to make sure expiration still happened, even if the
> entry was local destroyed on the primary, we could have done it and still had
> expiration be distributed. We could have sent a message to the primary
> telling it to do the expire action (invalidate or destroy) even if the entry
> does not exist on the primary. We should also consider having a fixed delay
> of the expiration on the secondary so that if primary expiration is working
> it will happen before the secondary expiration. If the primary expiration
> happens first then it will send a message to the secondary cancelling it and
> expiring the entry there.
> Another option is to redefine eviction so that it accommodates to expiration
> instead of expiration accommodating to eviction. Eviction doing a local
> destroy on a region that provides consistent storage (both partitioned and
> replicate regions) is not a good thing. It would be much better for eviction
> to do a distributed destroy on these regions.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
