At this point queues cannot be persisted yet. The ability to store any data structure or any cache to disk is currently being designed. I believe that it will become part of Ignite release by the end of March.
As far as transaction logic, I would like other community members to chime in. How difficult will it be to make queues and all other data structures transactional? D. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Stolidedog <[email protected]> wrote: > So if I understand correctly you cannot store queue info in a DB currently > with Ignite V1.5? > > We are a software vendor and want to build services that communicate > between > each other. The thing to note, is this is on-prem software and we don't > have anyway to know ahead of time how much nodes we can deploy. Probably > in > most cases we have two - four machines, so spinning up more nodes adding > more memory isn't "usually" a luxury afforded to us. It is simply out of > our control. > > The ability to off load storage in a distributed cluster is what our > customers are requiring more and more (but not all of them). Also we > cannot > loose any messages we distribute work on and it is very likely the whole > cluster can go down either on purpose or not. Backing up data in a storage > engine (probably for us a RDBMS or NoSQL) is something we just need to have > for our situation. > > Hazelcast allows this, but I've been experimenting with Hz but seems like > transacted queues have been never really tested and mostly broken and I > don't get a good feeling about how fast they turn things around when issues > are reported. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Stupide-question-about-Queue-tp2557p3058.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
