Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

BLAT sounds good to me because it slightly funny in case you speak russian. "Node joined topology by BLAT (po blaty)" sounds reasonable :) чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 1:15, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > Ed, > > Anyone speaking Russian would agree that BLAT is not a good name :) Let's >

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Ed, Anyone speaking Russian would agree that BLAT is not a good name :) Let's steak to BLT. D. On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:34 AM, Eduard Shangareev < eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Igniters, > > We have invested too much in explaining BLAT. So, it would hard to change > the name. > I.e. I

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

I do not like the name "current" on the methods. I think we should just remove it, e.g. currentAffinityTopology() -> affinityTopology() D. On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Eduard Shangareev < eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Igniters, > > With Vladimir's help, we analyzed another solution's

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Igniters, With Vladimir's help, we analyzed another solution's approaches. And decided to simplify our affinity topology auto-adjusting. It should be enough to be able to turn on/off auto-adjusting (flag) and set 2 timeouts if it is working: -soft timeout which would be used if there was no

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Eduard, +1 to your proposed API for configuring Affinity Topology change policies. Obviously we should use "auto" as default behavior. I believe, automatic rebalancing is expected and more convenient for majority of users. Best Regards, Ivan Rakov On 26.04.2018 19:27, Eduard Shangareev

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Guys, I would start with estimating efforts rather than with release numbers. I am not aware of any pressure or deadlines for AI 2.5. On the other hand current behavior causes a lot of difficulties to our users and it is better to focus on how to restore original behavior in the product ASAP. It

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Igniters, Ok, I want to share my thoughts about "affinity topology (AT) changing policies". There would be three major option: -auto; -manual; -custom. 1. Automatic change. A user could set timeouts for: a. change AT on any topology change after some timeout (setATChangeTimeout in seconds); b.

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Dmitriy, I also think that we should think about 2.6 as the target. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitriy, > > I doubt we will be able to fit this in 2.5 given that we did not even agree > on the policy interface. Forcing in-memory

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Dmitriy, I doubt we will be able to fit this in 2.5 given that we did not even agree on the policy interface. Forcing in-memory caches to use baseline topology will be an easy technical fix, however, we will need to update and probably fix lots of failover tests, add new ones. I think it makes

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Eduard, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "policy". Is it an interface that will have a few default implementations and user will be able to create his own one? If so, could you please write an example of such interface (how you see it) and how and when it's methods will be invoked. On

Re: IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Ed, how difficult is this fix? Are you suggesting it for 2.5? On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:10 AM, Eduard Shangareev < eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Igniters, > I have described the issue with current approach in "New definition for > affinity node (issues with baseline)" topic[1]. > > Now

IEP-4, Phase 2. Using BL(A)T for in-memory caches.

Igniters, I have described the issue with current approach in "New definition for affinity node (issues with baseline)" topic[1]. Now we have 2 different affinity topology (one for in-memory, another for persistent caches). It causes problems: - we lose (in general) co-location between different