The case is the following, One starts transaction in one node, and commit
this transaction in another jvm node(or rollback it remotely).
вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
> Because even if you make it work for some simplistic scenario, get ready to
> write many fault tolerance tests and make sure that you TXs work gracefully
> in all modes in case of crashes. Also make sure that we do not have any
> performance drops after all your changes in existing benchmarks. All in all
> I don't believe these conditions will be met and your contribution will be
> accepted.
>
> Better solution to what problem? Sending TX to another node? The problem
> statement itself is already wrong. What business case you are trying to
> solve? I'm sure everything you need can be done in a much more simple and
> efficient way at the application level.
>
> Sergi
>
> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Why wrong ? You know the better solution?
> >
> > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Just serializing TX object and deserializing it on another node is
> > > meaningless, because other nodes participating in the TX have to know
> > about
> > > the new coordinator. This will require protocol changes, we definitely
> > will
> > > have fault tolerance and performance issues. IMO the whole idea is
> wrong
> > > and it makes no sense to waste time on it.
> > >
> > > Sergi
> > >
> > > 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > IgniteTransactionState implememntation contains IgniteTxEntry's which
> > is
> > > > supposed to be transferable
> > > >
> > > > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > It sounds a little scary to me that we are passing transaction
> > objects
> > > > > around. Such object may contain all sorts of Ignite context. If
> some
> > > data
> > > > > needs to be passed across, we should create a special transfer
> object
> > > in
> > > > > this case.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > well, there a couple of issues preventing transaction proceeding.
> > > > > > At first, After transaction serialization and deserialization on
> > the
> > > > > remote
> > > > > > server, there is no txState. So im going to put it in
> > > > > > writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The last one is Deserialized transaction lacks of shared cache
> > > context
> > > > > > field at TransactionProxyImpl. Perhaps, it must be injected by
> > > > > > GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > while starting and continuing transaction in different jvms in
> > run
> > > > into
> > > > > > > serialization exception in writeExternalMeta :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Override public void writeExternal(ObjectOutput out) throws
> > > > > IOException
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > > writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > some meta is cannot be serialized.
> > > > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 17:25, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I am starting to get what you want, but I have a few
> > > > concerns:
> > > > > > > - What is the API for the proposed change? In your test, you
> > pass
> > > an
> > > > > > > instance of transaction created on ignite(0) to the ignite
> > instance
> > > > > > > ignite(1). This is obviously not possible in a truly
> distributed
> > > > > > > (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > > > > > - How will you synchronize cache update actions and transaction
> > > > commit?
> > > > > > > Say, you have one node that decided to commit, but another node
> > is
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > writing within this transaction. How do you make sure that two
> > > nodes
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > not call commit() and rollback() simultaneously?
> > > > > > > - How do you make sure that either commit() or rollback() is
> > > called
> > > > if
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > originator failed?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов <
> somefire...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my initial understanding was that
> > > > transferring
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > tx
> > > > > > > > ownership from one node to another will be happened
> > automatically
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > originating node is gone down.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:36 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Im aiming to span transaction on multiple threads, nodes,
> > > > > jvms(soon).
> > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > every node is able to rollback, or commit common
> > transaction.It
> > > > > > turned
> > > > > > > > up i
> > > > > > > > > need to transfer tx between nodes in order to commit
> > > transaction
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > different node(in the same jvm).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 15:20, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you mean that you want a concept of transferring of tx
> > > > > ownership
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > one node to another? My initial understanding was that
> you
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > to update keys in a transaction from multiple threads in
> > > > > parallel.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --AG
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:01 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Well. Consider transaction started in one node, and
> > > continued
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > The following test describes my idea:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite ignite1 = ignite(0);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactions transactions =
> ignite1.transactions();
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > IgniteCache<String, Integer> cache =
> > > > ignite1.getOrCreateCache("
> > > > > > > > > > > testCache");
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Transaction tx = transactions.txStart(concurrency,
> > > > isolation);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key1", 1);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key2", 2);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > tx.stop();
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > IgniteInternalFuture<Boolean> fut =
> > > GridTestUtils.runAsync(()
> > > > > ->
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactions ts = ignite(1).transactions();
> > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertNull(ts.tx());
> > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.STOPPED,
> > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > ts.txStart(tx);
> > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.ACTIVE,
> > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key3", 3);
> > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertTrue(cache.remove("key2"));
> > > > > > > > > > > tx.commit();
> > > > > > > > > > > return true;
> > > > > > > > > > > });
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > fut.get();
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.COMMITTED,
> > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)1, (long)cache.get("key1"));
> > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)3, (long)cache.get("key3"));
> > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertFalse(cache.containsKey("key2"));
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In method *ts.txStart(...)* we just rebind *tx* to
> > current
> > > > > > thread:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > public void txStart(Transaction tx) {
> > > > > > > > > > > TransactionProxyImpl transactionProxy =
> > > > > > > (TransactionProxyImpl)tx;
> > > > > > > > > > > cctx.tm().reopenTx(transactionProxy.tx());
> > > > > > > > > > > transactionProxy.bindToCurrentThread();
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In method *reopenTx* we alter *threadMap* so that it
> > binds
> > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > to current thread.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How do u think about it ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 7 мар. 2017 г. в 22:38, Denis Magda <
> > dma...@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please share the rational behind this and the
> thoughts,
> > > > > design
> > > > > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > have in mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 3:19 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all! Im designing distributed transaction which
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > node, and continued at other one. Has anybody
> > thoughts
> > > on
> > > > > it
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > >
> > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> >
>
--
*Best Regards,*
*Kuznetsov Aleksey*
