ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Thin client: compute support
Date Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:20:54 GMT
Hi Alex

The idea is great. But I have some concerns that probably should be taken
into account for design:

   1. We need to have the ability to stop a task execution, smth like
   OP_COMPUTE_CANCEL_TASK  operation (client to server)
   2. What's about task execution timeout? It may help to the cluster
   survival for buggy tasks
   3. Ignite doesn't have roles/authorization functionality for now. But a
   task is the risky operation for cluster (for security reasons). Could we
   add for Ignite configuration new options:
      - Explicit turning on for compute task support for thin protocol
      (disabled by default) for whole cluster
      - Explicit turning on for compute task support for a node
      - The list of task names (classes) allowed to execute by thin client.
   4. Support the labeling for task that may help to investigate issues on
   cluster (the idea from IEP-34 [1])


On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:58 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.alex@gmail.com>

> Hello, Igniters!
> I have plans to start implementation of Compute interface for Ignite thin
> client and want to discuss features that should be implemented.
> We already have Compute implementation for binary-rest clients
> (GridClientCompute), which have the following functionality:
> - Filtering cluster nodes (projection) for compute
> - Executing task by the name
> I think we can implement this functionality in a thin client as well.
> First of all, we need some operation types to request a list of all
> available nodes and probably node attributes (by a list of nodes). Node
> attributes will be helpful if we will decide to implement analog of
> ClusterGroup#forAttribute or ClusterGroup#forePredicate methods in the thin
> client. Perhaps they can be requested lazily.
> From the protocol point of view there will be two new operations:
> Request: empty
> Response: long topologyVersion, int minorTopologyVersion, int nodesCount,
> for each node set of node fields (UUID nodeId, Object or String
> consistentId, long order, etc)
> Request: int nodesCount, for each node: UUID nodeId
> Response: int nodesCount, for each node: int attributesCount, for each node
> attribute: String name, Object value
> To execute tasks we need something like these methods in the client API:
> Object execute(String task, Object arg)
> Future<Object> executeAsync(String task, Object arg)
> Object affinityExecute(String task, String cache, Object key, Object arg)
> Future<Object> affinityExecuteAsync(String task, String cache, Object key,
> Object arg)
> Which can be mapped to protocol operations:
> Request: UUID nodeId, String taskName, Object arg
> Response: Object result
> Request: String cacheName, Object key, String taskName, Object arg
> Response: Object result
> The second operation is needed because we sometimes can't calculate and
> connect to affinity node on the client-side (affinity awareness can be
> disabled, custom affinity function can be used or there can be no
> connection between client and affinity node), but we can make best effort
> to send request to target node if affinity awareness is enabled.
> Currently, on the server-side requests always processed synchronously and
> responses are sent right after request was processed. To execute long tasks
> async we should whether change this logic or introduce some kind two-way
> communication between client and server (now only one-way requests from
> client to server are allowed).
> Two-way communication can also be useful in the future if we will send some
> server-side generated events to clients.
> In case of two-way communication there can be new operations introduced:
> OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK (from client to server)
> Request: UUID nodeId, String taskName, Object arg
> Response: long taskId
> OP_COMPUTE_TASK_FINISHED (from server to client)
> Request: taskId, Object result
> Response: empty
> The same for affinity requests.
> Also, we can implement not only execute task operation, but some other
> operations from IgniteCompute (broadcast, run, call), but it will be useful
> only for java thin client. And even with java thin client we should whether
> implement peer-class-loading for thin clients (this also requires two-way
> client-server communication) or put classes with executed closures to the
> server locally.
> What do you think about proposed protocol changes?
> Do we need two-way requests between client and server?
> Do we need support of compute methods other than "execute task"?
> What do you think about peer-class-loading for thin clients?

Sergey Kozlov
GridGain Systems

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