Hi Paradeep,

Why are you think, what the entry could not be read through your
persistence storage:

*.setReadThrough(stateQoS.isReadThroughEnabled()) *

When cache can not get data from in memory, it will try to get data from
storage, which configured as "ReadThrough".

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Pradeep Badiger <pradeepbadi...@fico.com>
wrote:

> Hi Vladislav,
>
>
>
> Please see the below cache configuration.
>
>
>
>                                              LruEvictionPolicy
> evictionPolicy = new LruEvictionPolicy<>(getIntProperty(envConfig,
> CACHE_SIZE, 10000));
>
>                                              cacheConfiguration
>
>
> .setEvictionPolicy(evictionPolicy)
>
>
> .setWriteBehindFlushSize(getIntProperty(envConfig, CACHE_WB_FLUSH_SIZE,
> 0))
>
>
> .setWriteBehindBatchSize(getIntProperty(envConfig, CACHE_WB_BATCH_SIZE,
> 200))
>
>
> .setWriteBehindEnabled(stateQoS.isWriteBehindEnabled())
>
>
> .setWriteBehindFlushFrequency(getIntProperty(envConfig,
> CACHE_WB_FLUSH_FREQ_MS, 5000))
>
>                                                             .
> setWriteBehindFlushThreadCount(getIntProperty(envConfig,
> CACHE_WB_FLUSH_THREADS, 10))
>
>
> .setCacheStoreFactory(new StateCacheStoreFactory<K, V>(cacheName,
>
>
> storageManager))
>
>
> .setName(cacheName)
>
>
> .setReadThrough(stateQoS.isReadThroughEnabled())
>
>
> .setWriteThrough(stateQoS.isWriteThroughEnabled());
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pradeep V.B.
>
>
>
> *From:* Vladislav Pyatkov [mailto:vldpyat...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:59 AM
>
> *To:* user@ignite.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Evicted entry appears in Write-behind cache
>
>
>
> Hi Pradeep,
>
>
>
> Could you please provide cache configuration?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> Looks like that my initial understanding was wrong. There is a related
> discussion
>
> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Cache-
> read-through-with-expiry-policy-td2521.html
>
>
>
> —
>
> Denis
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Pradeep Badiger <pradeepbadi...@fico.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Denis,
>
>
>
> I did the get() on the evicted entry from the cache, it still returned me
> the value without calling the load() on the store. As you said, the entry
> would be cached in the write behind store even for the evicted entry. Is
> that true?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pradeep V.B.
>
> *From:* Denis Magda [mailto:dma...@gridgain.com <dma...@gridgain.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 10, 2016 9:13 PM
> *To:* user@ignite.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Evicted entry appears in Write-behind cache
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> How do you see that the evicted entries are still in the cache? If you
> check this by calling cache get like operations then entries can be loaded
> back from the write-behind store or from your underlying store.
>
>
>
> —
>
> Denis
>
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Pradeep Badiger <pradeepbadi...@fico.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am trying to evaluate Apache Ignite and trying to explore eviction
> policy and write behind features. I am seeing that whenever a cache is
> configured with eviction policy and write behind feature, the write behind
> cache always have all the changed entries including the ones that are
> evicted, before the write cache is flushed. But soon after it is flushed,
> the store loads again from DB. Is this the expected behavior? Is there a
> documentation on how the write behind cache works?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pradeep V.B.
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary
> and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it
> immediately.
>
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary
> and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it
> immediately.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Vladislav Pyatkov
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary
> and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it
> immediately.
>

Reply via email to