ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Best Effort Affinity for thin clients
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:08:39 GMT
>  to every server
I did not think of this issue. Now I agree with your approach.
Can you please add an explanation of this to the IEP?

Thanks!

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 2:53 PM Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org> wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> Yeah, it makes sense, but to me it seems that this approach can lead
> to more complicated client logic, as it will require to make additional
> call
> to every server, that reports affinity topology change.
>
> Guys, WDYT?
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:59 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Igor,
> >
> > >  It is proposed to add flag to every response, that shows whether the
> > Affinity Topology Version of the cluster has changed since the last
> request
> > from the client.
> > I propose to keep this flag. So no need for periodic checks. Makes sense?
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:45 PM Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel,
> > >
> > > This will require from client to send this new request periodically,
> I'm
> > > not
> > > sure this will make clients simpler. Anyway, let's discuss it.
> > >
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > > With current proposal, we will have affinity info in message header.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:01 AM Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igor,
> > > >
> > > > I think that "Cache Partitions Request" should contain affinity
> > topology
> > > > version. Otherwise we do not know what distribution is returned - the
> > one
> > > > we expected, or some newer one. The latter may happen in case
> topology
> > > > changed or late affinity assignment happened between server response
> > and
> > > > subsequent client partitions request.
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:08 PM Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've updated IEP page [1] describing proposed solution in more
> > details
> > > > and
> > > > > proposing some changes for a protocol.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please, take a look and let me know what you think.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] -
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:54 AM Vladimir Ozerov <
> > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, in principle we can extend it. We are going to implement
it
> in
> > > > > > subsequent phases of this IEP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Feel that this functionality can be extended to the
automatic
> > > > > > reconnect,
> > > > > > > > can't it? Presently we require to provide a static
list of
> IPs
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > at a reconnect time. By having a partition map of
all the
> > nodes,
> > > > the
> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > client should be able to automate this piece.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not sure if static IP list can be avoided. What Igor is
> > suggesting
> > > is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > we try to pick the best node out of the static IP  list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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