ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite memory -> virtual memory
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2017 08:33:38 GMT
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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message