Sergey,
Sorry for the late response.
I'd think twice or more :) and discussed the idea with Alexey G.
Seems, we have no reason to check some backups since AI should guarantee it
has everything consistent.
But, it useful to have some feature to check this guarantee is not bluff.
BTW, I'm still
Anton
I'm Ok with your proposal but IMO it should be provided as IEP?
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 4:05 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> Sergey,
>
> I'd like to continue the discussion since it closely linked to the problem
> I'm currently working on.
>
> 1) writeSynchronizationMode should not be a
Sergey,
I'd like to continue the discussion since it closely linked to the problem
I'm currently working on.
1) writeSynchronizationMode should not be a part of cache configuration,
agree.
This should be up to the user to decide how strong should be "update
guarantee".
So, I propose to have a
There's another point to improve:
if *syncPartitions=N* comes as the configurable in run-time it will allow
to manage the consistency-performance balance runtime, e.g. switch to full
async for preloading and then go to back to full sync for regular operations
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:48 PM
Vyacheskav,
You're right with the referring to MongoDB doc. In general the idea is very
similar. Many vendors use such approach (1).
[1]
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/replication-options-master.html#sysvar_rpl_semi_sync_master_wait_for_slave_count
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:40
Hi, Sergey,
Makes sense to me in case of performance issues, but may lead to losing data.
>> *by the new option *syncPartitions=N* (not best name just for referring)
Seems similar to "Write Concern"[1] in MongoDB. It is used in the same
way as you described.
On the other hand, if you have such
Ilya
See comments inline.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:11 PM Ilya Kasnacheev
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> When you have 2 backups and N = 1, how will conflicts be resolved?
>
> Imagine that you had N = 1, and primary node failed immediately after
> operation. Now you have one backup that was updated
Sergey,
+1 to your proposal.
Looks pretty similar to Kafka's approach.
Ilya,
>> Will they stay unsynced, or is there any mechanism of re-syncing?
Yes, I'm currently working [1] on it.
The current implementation allows restoring the latest value.
[1]
Hello!
When you have 2 backups and N = 1, how will conflicts be resolved?
Imagine that you had N = 1, and primary node failed immediately after
operation. Now you have one backup that was updated synchronously and one
which did not. Will they stay unsynced, or is there any mechanism of
Igniters
I'm working with the wide range of cache configurations and found (from my
standpoint) the interesting point for the discussion:
Now we have following *writeSynchronizationMode *options:
1. *FULL_ASYNC*
- primary partition updated asynchronously
- backup partitions
10 matches
Mail list logo
