The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant copies. Is redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api to support it?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1 to Alexander’s statement. > > Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the common > use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy regions on > the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first for the > initial release. > > -jake > > > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps have > no > > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io > > > > wrote: > > > >> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members of > a > >> cluster to always be uniform? > >> > >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >>> > >>> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop > >>> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > >>> > >>> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting > >> using > >>> different object types to represent different types of region, for > >> example, > >>> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > Instead > >>> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values > and > >>> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > type, > >>> should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, we > >>> would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe <jde...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability > >> for a > >>>> user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions > >> (via > >>>> gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > >> create a > >>>> PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > another > >>>> group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > >>> possible. > >>>> > >>>> --Jens > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to > >> host > >>>>> logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in > >>>>> conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the > >>> server > >>>>> and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > >>> cache.xml > >>>>> works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not > >>>> sure. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > >>>> backward > >>>>> to the separate attributes. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Mike Stolz > >>>>> Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > >>>>> Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > >>> dschnei...@pivotal.io> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > >>>> cluster. > >>>>> So > >>>>>> these regions would be created on servers. > >>>>>> So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on > >>> the > >>>>>> server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would > >>> still > >>>>> be > >>>>>> supported on clients. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > >>>>> attributes > >>>>>>> for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> LOCAL, > >>>>>>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > >>>>>>> LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > >>>>>>> LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > >>>>>>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PARTITION, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> REPLICATE, > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> REPLICATE_PROXY, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_PROXY, > >>>>>>> PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > >>>>> wondering > >>>>>>> 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through > >>> management > >>>>> rest > >>>>>>> api? > >>>>>>> 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through > >>> management > >>>>> rest > >>>>>>> api? > >>>>>>> 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we > >>>>> strive > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>> keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the > >> type > >>>> as > >>>>>>> REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like > >> "redundantCopy" > >>>> and > >>>>>>> "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region > >>>> attributes? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> comments appreciated! > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jinmei > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> Jinmei > >>> > >> >
