Hi, Paranay, The logic of why IGFS does not have implemented CacheStore is that it aims different goals. Please see https://apacheignite-fs.readme.io/docs/in-memory-file-system for general IGFS concepts: it has both "native" and Hadoop API , both these are file-system like APIs. As a persistent layer the underlying secondary file system is used. So, IGFS is designed with the "in-memory file system" being the central concept, distributed cache is just its implementation. IGFS is implemented using 2 caches , and the mapping between files and K-V pairs in caches is not trivial. In contrast, CacheStore is used to load and persist caches , when (1) cache is central concept of the task, and (2) when K-V pairs more-or-less directly map to the underlying storage (e.g. as in case of org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.H2CacheStoreStrategy.H2CacheStore).
Of course, you can add a CacheStore to the IGFS caches, but the question arises, would an underlying secondary file system be better and cheaper persistent layer? p.s. HDFS is not read-only, it is read-write file system. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Few-questions-tp13004p13070.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
