Hi,
Sorry, tearing down the project to make a runnable proved to be a much
bigger project than expected. I eventually managed, and the outcome is:
I used to call:
List<String> cacheNames = new ArrayList<>();
ignite.cacheNames().forEach(
n -> {
if (!n.equals("settingsCache")) {
ignite.cache(n).localEntries(CachePeekMode.ALL).iterator().forEachRemaining(a
-> cacheNames.add(a.getKey().toString()));
}
}
);
to check the local caches, which apparently creates a local copy of the
cache in the machine (!?).
Now, I replaced it with:
List<String> cacheNames = new ArrayList<>();
UUID localId = ignite.cluster().localNode().id();
ignite.cacheNames().forEach(
cache -> {
if (!cache.equals("settingsCache")) {
boolean containsCache =
ignite.cluster().forCacheNodes(cache).nodes().stream()
.anyMatch(n -> n.id().equals(localId));
if (containsCache) {
cacheNames.add(cache);
}
}
}
);
And the issue disapeared. Is this an intended behaviour? Because it looks
weird to me.
To reply to:
"I think, it’s better not to set it, because otherwise if you don’t trigger
the rebalance, then only one node will store the cache."
With the configuration I posted you, the cache is spread out to the
machines that I use in the setNodeFilter().
Yes, I believe you're correct with the NodeFilter. It should be pointless
to have now, right? That was me experimenting and trying to figure out why
was the cache spreading to new nodes.
fetchNodes() fetches the ids of the local node and the k most empty nodes (
where k is given as an input for each cache). I check how full a node is
based on the code right above, in which I check how many caches a node has.
Yes, I read that I should have set the attributes. However, now it feels
like an unnecessary step? What would that improve, in my case?
And yes, it makes sense now! Thanks for the clarification. I thought that
the rebalancing was rebalancing something in an uncontrolled way, but turns
out everything was due to my
ignite.cache(n).localEntries(CachePeekMode.ALL) creating a local cache.
I have just one question: you called it "backup filter". Is the nodeFilter
a filter for only backup nodes or was that a typo? I thought it was a
filter for all the nodes for a cache.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 17:58, Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Marco,
>
> Rebalance mode set to NONE means that your cache won’t be rebalanced at
> all unless you trigger it manually.
> I think, it’s better not to set it, because otherwise if you don’t trigger
> the rebalance, then only one node will store the cache.
>
> Also the backup filter specified in the affinity function doesn’t seem
> correct to me. It’s always true, since your node filter accepts only those
> nodes, that are in the nodesForOptimization list.
>
> What does fetchNodes() method do?
> The recommended way to implement node filters is to check custom node’s
> attributes using an AttributeNodeFilter
> <https://static.javadoc.io/org.apache.ignite/ignite-core/2.7.5/org/apache/ignite/util/AttributeNodeFilter.html>
> .
>
> Partition map exchange is a process that happens after every topology
> change. Nodes exchange information about partitions distribution of caches.
> So, you can’t prevent it from happening.
> The message, that you see is a symptom and not a cause.
>
> Denis
>
>
> On 13 Aug 2019, at 09:50, Marco Bernagozzi <marco.bernago...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, I did some more digging and discovered that the issue seems to be:
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.distributed.dht.preloader.GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture:
> Completed partition exchange
>
> Is there any way to disable or limit the partition exchange?
>
> Best,
> Marco
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:59, Andrei Aleksandrov <aealexsand...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you share the whole reproducer with all configurations and required
> methods?
>
> BR,
> Andrei
>
> 8/12/2019 4:48 PM, Marco Bernagozzi пишет:
>
> I have a set of nodes, and I want to be able to set a cache in specific
> nodes. It works, but whenever I turn on a new node the cache is
> automatically spread to that node, which then causes errors like:
> Failed over job to a new node ( I guess that there was a computation going
> on in a node that shouldn't have computed that, and was shut down in the
> meantime).
>
> I don't know if I'm doing something wrong here or I'm missing something.
> As I understand it, NodeFilter and Affinity are equivalent in my case
> (Affinity is a node filter which also creates rules on where can the cache
> spread from a given node?). With rebalance mode set to NONE, shouldn't the
> cache be spread on the "nodesForOptimization" nodes, according to either
> the node filter or the affinityFunction?
>
> Here's my code:
>
> List<UUID> nodesForOptimization = fetchNodes();
>
> CacheConfiguration<String, Graph> graphCfg =
> new CacheConfiguration<>(graphCacheName);
> graphCfg = graphCfg.setCacheMode(CacheMode.REPLICATED)
> .setBackups(nodesForOptimization.size() - 1)
> .setAtomicityMode(CacheAtomicityMode.ATOMIC)
> .setRebalanceMode(CacheRebalanceMode.NONE)
> .setStoreKeepBinary(true)
> .setCopyOnRead(false)
> .setOnheapCacheEnabled(false)
> .setNodeFilter(u -> nodesForOptimization.contains(u.id()))
> .setAffinity(
> new RendezvousAffinityFunction(
> 1024,
> (c1, c2) -> nodesForOptimization.contains(c1.id())
> && nodesForOptimization.contains(c2.id())
> )
> )
>
> .setWriteSynchronizationMode(CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC);
>
>
>
