Updated the javadoc and existing 2.0 documentation (decided to leave the url of the doc unchanged
- there are many references to it):
https://apacheignite.readme.io/v2.0/docs/page-memory <https://apacheignite.readme.io/v2.0/docs/page-memory>
-
Denis
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Agreed then. Let's update the javadoc and documentation.
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> I am fine with this javadoc change as long as there is no confusion between
>> Ignite page memory buffers and the OS Virtual Memory concept.
>>
>> 2017-06-01 2:07 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>>
>>> Igniters,
>>>
>>> With the newly donated persistence functionality in Ignite, I have been
>>> struggling a bit on how to fit the notion of persistence into the current
>>> Ignite interfaces, that are almost completely memory oriented. For
>> example,
>>> abstractions like MemoryConfiguration or MemoryMetrics will now have to
>>> include the persistence context, given that pages will be seamlessly
>> mapped
>>> to disk, whenever the memory fills up (e.g. providing the number of pages
>>> on disk on MemoryMetrics interface).
>>>
>>> After looking around, I have noticed that our architecture is
>> increasingly
>>> beginning to look like the Virtual Memory concept in operating systems
>> [1],
>>> if you consider Ignite off-heap memory to be the physical memory, and
>> disk
>>> to be the secondary memory space. Just like virtual memory, our
>>> architecture is based on memory pages and memory segments. The total set
>> of
>>> all pages constitutes the total virtual memory space.
>>>
>>> If we document our memory interfaces as virtual memory, then we won't
>> have
>>> to do any renaming and can comfortably add disk-based methods to these
>>> interfaces, as it becomes consistent with the virtual memory concept.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
>>>
>>
|