Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > 2017-08-09 17:07 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>> > dsetrak...@apache.org >>> > > >: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:28

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

tarted working on a https://issues.apache.org/ >> > > > > > > > jira/browse/IGNITE-5836 >> > > > > > > > ticket and found that the recently added feature with >> > cacheGroups >> > > > > doing >> > > > > > > > pretty much the same that was described in this issue. >> > CacheGroup >> > > > > > > > guarantees >> > > > > > > > that all caches within a group have same assignments since >> they >> > > > > share a >> > > > > > > > single underlying 'physical' cache. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think we can return FairAffinityFunction and add >> information >> > to >> > > > its >> > > > > > > > Javadoc that all caches with same AffinityFunction and >> > NodeFilter >> > > > > > should >> > > > > > > be >> > > > > > > > combined in cache group to avoid a problem with inconsistent >> > > > previous >> > > > > > > > assignments. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > What do you guys think? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Are you suggesting that we can only reuse the same >> > > > FairAffinityFunction >> > > > > > > across the logical caches within the same group? This would >> mean >> > > that >> > > > > > > caches from the different groups cannot participate in JOINs >> or >> > > > > > collocated >> > > > > > > compute. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we >> > > > enforce >> > > > > > this >> > > > > > > restriction, at least at the SQL JOIN level. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alexey G, Val, would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Evgenii >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- >> > > > > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect- >> > FairAffinityFunction- >> > > > > > > > tp19987p20669.html >> > > > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive >> at >> > > > > > > Nabble.com. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

gt; > > > that all caches within a group have same assignments since > they > > > > > share a > > > > > > > > single underlying 'physical' cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can return FairAffinityFunction and add > information > > to > > > > its > > > > > > > > Javadoc that all caches with same AffinityFunction and > > NodeFilter > > > > > > should > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > combined in cache group to avoid a problem with inconsistent > > > > previous > > > > > > > > assignments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that we can only reuse the same > > > > FairAffinityFunction > > > > > > > across the logical caches within the same group? This would > mean > > > that > > > > > > > caches from the different groups cannot participate in JOINs or > > > > > > collocated > > > > > > > compute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we > > > > enforce > > > > > > this > > > > > > > restriction, at least at the SQL JOIN level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexey G, Val, would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgenii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- > > > > > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect- > > FairAffinityFunction- > > > > > > > > tp19987p20669.html > > > > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive > at > > > > > > > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can return FairAffinityFunction and add information > to > > > its > > > > > > > Javadoc that all caches with same AffinityFunction and > NodeFilter > > > > > should > > > > > > be > > > > > > > combined in cache group to avoid a problem with inconsistent > > > previous > > > > > > > assignments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that we can only reuse the same > > > FairAffinityFunction > > > > > > across the logical caches within the same group? This would mean > > that > > > > > > caches from the different groups cannot participate in JOINs or > > > > > collocated > > > > > > compute. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we > > > enforce > > > > > this > > > > > > restriction, at least at the SQL JOIN level. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexey G, Val, would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgenii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- > > > > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect- > FairAffinityFunction- > > > > > > > tp19987p20669.html > > > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at > > > > > > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can return FairAffinityFunction and add information > to > > > its > > > > > > > Javadoc that all caches with same AffinityFunction and > NodeFil

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

all caches with same AffinityFunction and NodeFilter > > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > combined in cache group to avoid a problem with inconsistent > > previous > > > > > > assignments. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think? &g

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

oblem with inconsistent > > previous > > > > > > assignments. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that we can only reuse the same > > FairAffinityFunction > > > > > across the logical caches within the same group? This would mean > that > > > > > caches from the different groups cannot participate in JOINs or > > > > collocated > > > > > compute. > > > > > > > > > > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we > > enforce > > > > this > > > > > restriction, at least at the SQL JOIN level. > > > > > > > > > > Alexey G, Val, would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgenii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- > > > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect-FairAffinityFunction- > > > > > > tp19987p20669.html > > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at > > > > > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

> > > > > > Are you suggesting that we can only reuse the same > FairAffinityFunction > > > > across the logical caches within the same group? This would mean that > > > > caches from the different groups cannot participate in JOINs or > > > collocated > > > > compute. > > > > > > > > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we > enforce > > > this > > > > restriction, at least at the SQL JOIN level. > > > > > > > > Alexey G, Val, would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgenii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- > > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect-FairAffinityFunction- > > > > > tp19987p20669.html > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at > > > > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

> > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that we can only reuse the same > FairAffinityFunction > > > > across the logical caches within the same group? This would mean that > > > > caches from the different groups cannot participate in JOINs or > > > collocated > > > > compute. > > > > > > > > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we > enforce > > > this > > > > restriction, at least at the SQL JOIN level. > > > > > > > > Alexey G, Val, would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgenii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- > > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect-FairAffinityFunction- > > > > > tp19987p20669.html > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at > > > > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

ld mean that > > > caches from the different groups cannot participate in JOINs or > > collocated > > > compute. > > > > > > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we enforce > > this > > > restriction, at least at the SQL JOIN level. > > > > > > Alexey G, Val, would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgenii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect-FairAffinityFunction- > > > > tp19987p20669.html > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at > > > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

finityFunction > > across the logical caches within the same group? This would mean that > > caches from the different groups cannot participate in JOINs or > collocated > > compute. > > > > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

; > I think I like the idea, however, we need to make sure that we enforce this > restriction, at least at the SQL JOIN level. > > Alexey G, Val, would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > Evgenii > > > > > > > > -- > > Vie

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

> > > > -- > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect-FairAffinityFunction- > tp19987p20669.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

? Evgenii -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Resurrect-FairAffinityFunction-tp19987p20669.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

Create a ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5836 -Val On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Semyon, > > We had some improvements, but to knowledge fair affinity still provides > much better distribution (at least I

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

Semyon, We had some improvements, but to knowledge fair affinity still provides much better distribution (at least I haven't seen any results showing otherwise). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, I think it's not an issue with fair function in particular, but rather a design flow in

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

Valentin, As far as I know in 2.0 some changes were made in rendezvous function so now it can provide better result. Do you have some numbers for 2.0 so that we can compare rendezvous and fair affinity functions? Thanks On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:13 AM, wrote: > Agree

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

Agree with Val, we should bring it back. ⁣D.​ On Jul 24, 2017, 8:14 PM, at 8:14 PM, Valentin Kulichenko wrote: >Guys, > >Some time ago we removed FairAffinityFunction from the project. >However, my >communication with users clearly shows that is was a rush

Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

Guys, Some time ago we removed FairAffinityFunction from the project. However, my communication with users clearly shows that is was a rush decision. Distribution showed by Fair AF is much better than default and for some users it's extremely important. Basically, there are cases when rendezvous