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

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

2018-05-24 Thread Anton Vinogradov

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
> 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 propose to save this term.
> >
> >
> > New names for auto-adjust control.
> >
> > 1. org.apache.ignite.IgniteCluster
> >
> > *Add*
> > isBaselineAutoAdjustEnabled()
> > setBaselineAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
> > setBaselineAutoAdjustTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
> > setBaselineAutoAdjustMaxTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
> >
> > 2. org.apache.ignite.configuration.IgniteConfiguration
> >
> > *Add*
> > IgniteConfiguration setBaselineAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
> > IgniteConfiguration setBaselineAutoAdjustTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
> > IgniteConfiguration setBaselineAutoAdjustMaxTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
> >
> > Any objections?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 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 other node
> > joins/exits;
> > > > -hard timeout which we would track from first discovery event and if
> it
> > > > reached then immediately would change affinity topology.
> > > >
> > > > All other strategies could be realized with API usage
> > > (setAffinityTopology)
> > > > and metrics tracking by user's monitoring tools.
> > > >
> > > > So, I suggest next API changes:
> > > >
> > > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteCluster
> > > >
> > > > *Deprecate*:
> > > > Collection currentBaselineTopology();
> > > > void setBaselineTopology(Collection
> > > baselineTop);
> > > > void setBaselineTopology(long topVer);
> > > >
> > > > *Replace them with*
> > > > Collection currentAffinityTopology();
> > > > void setAffinityTopology(Collection
> > > affinityTop);
> > > > void setAffinityTopology(long topVer);
> > > >
> > > > *Add*
> > > > isAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled()
> > > > setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
> > > >
> > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.IgniteConfiguration
> > > >
> > > > *Add*
> > > > IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean
> > > enabled);
> > > > IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustTimeout(long
> > > > timeoutInMs);
> > > > IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustMaxTimeout(long
> > > > timeoutInMs);
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > An open question is could we rename or duplicate BaselineNode with
> > > > AffinityNode?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Ivan Rakov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> 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. change AT on node left after some timeout
> > > > (setATChangeOnNodeLeftTimeout
> > > > >> in seconds);
> > > > >> c. change AT on node join after some timeout
> > > > (setATChangeOnNodeJoinTimeout
> > > > >> in seconds).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> b and c are more specific, so they would override a.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Also, I want to introduce a mechanism of merging AT changes, which
> > > would
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> turned on by default.
> > > > >> Other words, if we reached timeout than we would change AT to
> > current
> > > > >> topology, not that one which was on timeout schedule.
> > >

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

2018-05-23 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

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 propose to save this term.
>
>
> New names for auto-adjust control.
>
> 1. org.apache.ignite.IgniteCluster
>
> *Add*
> isBaselineAutoAdjustEnabled()
> setBaselineAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
> setBaselineAutoAdjustTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
> setBaselineAutoAdjustMaxTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
>
> 2. org.apache.ignite.configuration.IgniteConfiguration
>
> *Add*
> IgniteConfiguration setBaselineAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
> IgniteConfiguration setBaselineAutoAdjustTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
> IgniteConfiguration setBaselineAutoAdjustMaxTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
>
> Any objections?
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 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 other node
> joins/exits;
> > > -hard timeout which we would track from first discovery event and if it
> > > reached then immediately would change affinity topology.
> > >
> > > All other strategies could be realized with API usage
> > (setAffinityTopology)
> > > and metrics tracking by user's monitoring tools.
> > >
> > > So, I suggest next API changes:
> > >
> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteCluster
> > >
> > > *Deprecate*:
> > > Collection currentBaselineTopology();
> > > void setBaselineTopology(Collection
> > baselineTop);
> > > void setBaselineTopology(long topVer);
> > >
> > > *Replace them with*
> > > Collection currentAffinityTopology();
> > > void setAffinityTopology(Collection
> > affinityTop);
> > > void setAffinityTopology(long topVer);
> > >
> > > *Add*
> > > isAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled()
> > > setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
> > >
> > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.IgniteConfiguration
> > >
> > > *Add*
> > > IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean
> > enabled);
> > > IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustTimeout(long
> > > timeoutInMs);
> > > IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustMaxTimeout(long
> > > timeoutInMs);
> > >
> > >
> > > An open question is could we rename or duplicate BaselineNode with
> > > AffinityNode?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Ivan Rakov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 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. change AT on node left after some timeout
> > > (setATChangeOnNodeLeftTimeout
> > > >> in seconds);
> > > >> c. change AT on node join after some timeout
> > > (setATChangeOnNodeJoinTimeout
> > > >> in seconds).
> > > >>
> > > >> b and c are more specific, so they would override a.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, I want to introduce a mechanism of merging AT changes, which
> > would
> > > >> be
> > > >> turned on by default.
> > > >> Other words, if we reached timeout than we would change AT to
> current
> > > >> topology, not that one which was on timeout schedule.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Manual change.
> > > >>
> > > >> Current behavior. A user change AT himself by console tools or web
> > > >> console.
> > > >>
> > > >> 3. Custom.
> > > >>
> > > >> We would give the option to set own realization of changing policy
> > > (class
> > > >> name in config).
> > > >> We should pass as incoming parameters:
> > > >> - current topology (collection of cluster nodes);
> > > >> - current AT (affinity topology);
> > > >> - map of GroupId to minimal alive backup number;
> > > >> - list of

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

2018-05-04 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

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 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 other node joins/exits;
> -hard timeout which we would track from first discovery event and if it
> reached then immediately would change affinity topology.
>
> All other strategies could be realized with API usage (setAffinityTopology)
> and metrics tracking by user's monitoring tools.
>
> So, I suggest next API changes:
>
> org.apache.ignite.IgniteCluster
>
> *Deprecate*:
> Collection currentBaselineTopology();
> void setBaselineTopology(Collection baselineTop);
> void setBaselineTopology(long topVer);
>
> *Replace them with*
> Collection currentAffinityTopology();
> void setAffinityTopology(Collection affinityTop);
> void setAffinityTopology(long topVer);
>
> *Add*
> isAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled()
> setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
>
> org.apache.ignite.configuration.IgniteConfiguration
>
> *Add*
> IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
> IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustTimeout(long
> timeoutInMs);
> IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustMaxTimeout(long
> timeoutInMs);
>
>
> An open question is could we rename or duplicate BaselineNode with
> AffinityNode?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Ivan Rakov  wrote:
>
> > 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 wrote:
> >
> >> 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. change AT on node left after some timeout
> (setATChangeOnNodeLeftTimeout
> >> in seconds);
> >> c. change AT on node join after some timeout
> (setATChangeOnNodeJoinTimeout
> >> in seconds).
> >>
> >> b and c are more specific, so they would override a.
> >>
> >> Also, I want to introduce a mechanism of merging AT changes, which would
> >> be
> >> turned on by default.
> >> Other words, if we reached timeout than we would change AT to current
> >> topology, not that one which was on timeout schedule.
> >>
> >> 2. Manual change.
> >>
> >> Current behavior. A user change AT himself by console tools or web
> >> console.
> >>
> >> 3. Custom.
> >>
> >> We would give the option to set own realization of changing policy
> (class
> >> name in config).
> >> We should pass as incoming parameters:
> >> - current topology (collection of cluster nodes);
> >> - current AT (affinity topology);
> >> - map of GroupId to minimal alive backup number;
> >> - list of configuration (1.a, 1.b, 1.c);
> >> - scheduler.
> >>
> >> Plus to these configurations, I propose orthogonal option.
> >> 4. Emergency affinity topology change.
> >> It would change AT even MANUAL option is set if at least one cache group
> >> backup factor goes below  or equal chosen one (by default 0).
> >> So, if we came to situation when after node left there was only primary
> >> partion (without backups) for some cache group we would change AT
> >> immediately.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you for your attention.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> >> eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 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 sense to target this change to 2.6.
> 
>  2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh :
> 
>  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
> >

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

2018-05-04 Thread Eduard Shangareev

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 other node joins/exits;
-hard timeout which we would track from first discovery event and if it
reached then immediately would change affinity topology.

All other strategies could be realized with API usage (setAffinityTopology)
and metrics tracking by user's monitoring tools.

So, I suggest next API changes:

org.apache.ignite.IgniteCluster

*Deprecate*:
Collection currentBaselineTopology();
void setBaselineTopology(Collection baselineTop);
void setBaselineTopology(long topVer);

*Replace them with*
Collection currentAffinityTopology();
void setAffinityTopology(Collection affinityTop);
void setAffinityTopology(long topVer);

*Add*
isAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled()
setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);

org.apache.ignite.configuration.IgniteConfiguration

*Add*
IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustEnabled(boolean enabled);
IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustTimeout(long timeoutInMs);
IgniteConfiguration setAffinityTopologyAutoAdjustMaxTimeout(long
timeoutInMs);


An open question is could we rename or duplicate BaselineNode with
AffinityNode?






On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Ivan Rakov  wrote:

> 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 wrote:
>
>> 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. change AT on node left after some timeout (setATChangeOnNodeLeftTimeout
>> in seconds);
>> c. change AT on node join after some timeout (setATChangeOnNodeJoinTimeout
>> in seconds).
>>
>> b and c are more specific, so they would override a.
>>
>> Also, I want to introduce a mechanism of merging AT changes, which would
>> be
>> turned on by default.
>> Other words, if we reached timeout than we would change AT to current
>> topology, not that one which was on timeout schedule.
>>
>> 2. Manual change.
>>
>> Current behavior. A user change AT himself by console tools or web
>> console.
>>
>> 3. Custom.
>>
>> We would give the option to set own realization of changing policy (class
>> name in config).
>> We should pass as incoming parameters:
>> - current topology (collection of cluster nodes);
>> - current AT (affinity topology);
>> - map of GroupId to minimal alive backup number;
>> - list of configuration (1.a, 1.b, 1.c);
>> - scheduler.
>>
>> Plus to these configurations, I propose orthogonal option.
>> 4. Emergency affinity topology change.
>> It would change AT even MANUAL option is set if at least one cache group
>> backup factor goes below  or equal chosen one (by default 0).
>> So, if we came to situation when after node left there was only primary
>> partion (without backups) for some cache group we would change AT
>> immediately.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your attention.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
>> eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 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 sense to target this change to 2.6.

 2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh :

 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 Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, 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 we have 2 different affinity topology (one for in-memory,

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

2018-04-27 Thread Ivan Rakov


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 wrote:

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. change AT on node left after some timeout (setATChangeOnNodeLeftTimeout
in seconds);
c. change AT on node join after some timeout (setATChangeOnNodeJoinTimeout
in seconds).

b and c are more specific, so they would override a.

Also, I want to introduce a mechanism of merging AT changes, which would be
turned on by default.
Other words, if we reached timeout than we would change AT to current
topology, not that one which was on timeout schedule.

2. Manual change.

Current behavior. A user change AT himself by console tools or web console.

3. Custom.

We would give the option to set own realization of changing policy (class
name in config).
We should pass as incoming parameters:
- current topology (collection of cluster nodes);
- current AT (affinity topology);
- map of GroupId to minimal alive backup number;
- list of configuration (1.a, 1.b, 1.c);
- scheduler.

Plus to these configurations, I propose orthogonal option.
4. Emergency affinity topology change.
It would change AT even MANUAL option is set if at least one cache group
backup factor goes below  or equal chosen one (by default 0).
So, if we came to situation when after node left there was only primary
partion (without backups) for some cache group we would change AT
immediately.


Thank you for your attention.


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote:


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 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 sense to target this change to 2.6.

2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh :


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 Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, 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 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 caches;
- we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster;
- implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity
calculation.

So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches.
They should all use BLAT.

Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the

safety

of

in-memory data.
It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which

was

already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or

manually

if

the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2].

And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one
(add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay
[seconds]).

After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so

on.

Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one
possible Affinity Topology.


[1]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.

com/New-definition-for-

affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html
[2]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
com/Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the-
baseline-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none




--
Best regards,
Ilya

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

2018-04-26 Thread Vladimir Ozerov

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 could
be either AI 2.5 release if we understand that things could be fixed
quickly, or quick AI 2.6 release in a matter of month. What do you think?

As far as public API I would like to highlight the following important
points:
1) Affinity reassignment is critical for cluster stability so it should be
possible to change proposed settings in runtime
2) We should avoid exposing cache groups to API unless we agree on destiny
of thie feature. Hopefully, they would be removed.
3) From our previous experience we know that users typically having hard
times with multiple timeouts. If it possible to keep a single timeout, this
would be ideal
4) Another Ignite's pain point is interface - it is hard to deploy and
manage them in the cluster. For this reason I would avoid custom policy
altogether. Instead, use can listen for discovery events or poll cluster
state form MBeans or metrics and force AT reassignment manually.

Simmarizing all the points I would propose to have the following API:

interface IgniteCluster {
*boolean affinityTopologyAutoReassignmentEnabled;*
*long affinityTopologyAutoReassignmentTimeout;*

void setAffinityTopology(long topVer);
void setAffinityTopology(Collection nodes);
}

That is, only two new porperties are added. In order to force affinity
topology change to latest value user should do the following from any place
(event listener, monitoring thread, MXBean, control.sh, etc.):
setAffinityTopologyVersion(topologyVersion());

Thoughts?

Vladimir.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. change AT on node left after some timeout (setATChangeOnNodeLeftTimeout
> in seconds);
> c. change AT on node join after some timeout (setATChangeOnNodeJoinTimeout
> in seconds).
>
> b and c are more specific, so they would override a.
>
> Also, I want to introduce a mechanism of merging AT changes, which would be
> turned on by default.
> Other words, if we reached timeout than we would change AT to current
> topology, not that one which was on timeout schedule.
>
> 2. Manual change.
>
> Current behavior. A user change AT himself by console tools or web console.
>
> 3. Custom.
>
> We would give the option to set own realization of changing policy (class
> name in config).
> We should pass as incoming parameters:
> - current topology (collection of cluster nodes);
> - current AT (affinity topology);
> - map of GroupId to minimal alive backup number;
> - list of configuration (1.a, 1.b, 1.c);
> - scheduler.
>
> Plus to these configurations, I propose orthogonal option.
> 4. Emergency affinity topology change.
> It would change AT even MANUAL option is set if at least one cache group
> backup factor goes below  or equal chosen one (by default 0).
> So, if we came to situation when after node left there was only primary
> partion (without backups) for some cache group we would change AT
> immediately.
>
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
> eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 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 sense to target this change to 2.6.
> >>
> >> 2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh :
> >>
> >> > 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 Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, 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 we have 2 different affinity

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

2018-04-26 Thread Eduard Shangareev

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. change AT on node left after some timeout (setATChangeOnNodeLeftTimeout
in seconds);
c. change AT on node join after some timeout (setATChangeOnNodeJoinTimeout
in seconds).

b and c are more specific, so they would override a.

Also, I want to introduce a mechanism of merging AT changes, which would be
turned on by default.
Other words, if we reached timeout than we would change AT to current
topology, not that one which was on timeout schedule.

2. Manual change.

Current behavior. A user change AT himself by console tools or web console.

3. Custom.

We would give the option to set own realization of changing policy (class
name in config).
We should pass as incoming parameters:
- current topology (collection of cluster nodes);
- current AT (affinity topology);
- map of GroupId to minimal alive backup number;
- list of configuration (1.a, 1.b, 1.c);
- scheduler.

Plus to these configurations, I propose orthogonal option.
4. Emergency affinity topology change.
It would change AT even MANUAL option is set if at least one cache group
backup factor goes below  or equal chosen one (by default 0).
So, if we came to situation when after node left there was only primary
partion (without backups) for some cache group we would change AT
immediately.


Thank you for your attention.


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Eduard Shangareev <
eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 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 sense to target this change to 2.6.
>>
>> 2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh :
>>
>> > 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 Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, 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 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 caches;
>> > > - we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster;
>> > > - implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity
>> > > calculation.
>> > >
>> > > So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches.
>> > > They should all use BLAT.
>> > >
>> > > Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the
>> safety
>> > of
>> > > in-memory data.
>> > > It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which
>> was
>> > > already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or
>> manually
>> > if
>> > > the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2].
>> > >
>> > > And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one
>> > > (add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay
>> > > [seconds]).
>> > >
>> > > After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so
>> > on.
>> > > Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one
>> > > possible Affinity Topology.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
>> > com/New-definition-for-
>> > > affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html
>> > > [2]
>> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
>> > > com/Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the-
>> > > baseline-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Ilya
>> >
>>
>
>

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

2018-04-26 Thread Eduard Shangareev

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 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 sense to target this change to 2.6.
>
> 2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh :
>
> > 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 Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, 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 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 caches;
> > > - we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster;
> > > - implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity
> > > calculation.
> > >
> > > So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches.
> > > They should all use BLAT.
> > >
> > > Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the safety
> > of
> > > in-memory data.
> > > It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which was
> > > already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or
> manually
> > if
> > > the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2].
> > >
> > > And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one
> > > (add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay
> > > [seconds]).
> > >
> > > After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so
> > on.
> > > Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one
> > > possible Affinity Topology.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> > com/New-definition-for-
> > > affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html
> > > [2]
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> > > com/Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the-
> > > baseline-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ilya
> >
>

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

2018-04-26 Thread Alexey Goncharuk

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 sense to target this change to 2.6.

2018-04-25 22:25 GMT+03:00 Ilya Lantukh :

> 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 Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, 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 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 caches;
> > - we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster;
> > - implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity
> > calculation.
> >
> > So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches.
> > They should all use BLAT.
> >
> > Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the safety
> of
> > in-memory data.
> > It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which was
> > already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or manually
> if
> > the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2].
> >
> > And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one
> > (add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay
> > [seconds]).
> >
> > After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so
> on.
> > Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one
> > possible Affinity Topology.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> com/New-definition-for-
> > affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html
> > [2]
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> > com/Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the-
> > baseline-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ilya
>

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

2018-04-25 Thread Ilya Lantukh

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 Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:10 PM, 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 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 caches;
> - we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster;
> - implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity
> calculation.
>
> So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches.
> They should all use BLAT.
>
> Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the safety of
> in-memory data.
> It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which was
> already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or manually if
> the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2].
>
> And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one
> (add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay
> [seconds]).
>
> After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so on.
> Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one
> possible Affinity Topology.
>
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/New-definition-for-
> affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html
> [2]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> com/Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the-
> baseline-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none
>



-- 
Best regards,
Ilya

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

2018-04-25 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

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 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 caches;
> - we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster;
> - implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity
> calculation.
>
> So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches.
> They should all use BLAT.
>
> Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the safety of
> in-memory data.
> It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which was
> already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or manually if
> the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2].
>
> And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one
> (add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay
> [seconds]).
>
> After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so on.
> Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one
> possible Affinity Topology.
>
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/New-
> definition-for-affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html
> [2]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the-baselin
> e-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none
>

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

2018-04-25 Thread Eduard Shangareev

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 caches;
- we can't avoid PME when non-BLAT node joins cluster;
- implementation should consider 2 different approaches to affinity
calculation.

So, I suggest unifying behavior of in-memory and persistent caches.
They should all use BLAT.

Their behaviors were different because we couldn't guarantee the safety of
in-memory data.
It should be fixed by a new mechanism of BLAT changing policy which was
already discussed there - "Triggering rebalancing on timeout or manually if
the baseline topology is not reassembled" [2].

And we should have a policy by default which similar to current one
(add nodes, remove nodes automatically but after some reasonable delay
[seconds]).

After this change, we could stop using the term 'BLAT', Basline and so on.
Because there would not be an alternative. So, it would be only one
possible Affinity Topology.


[1]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/New-definition-for-affinity-node-issues-with-baseline-td29868.html
[2]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Triggering-rebalancing-on-timeout-or-manually-if-the-baseline-topology-is-not-reassembled-td29299.html#none

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information