Semyon, This is exactly what I want.
But currently I don't undestand how affinity would be calculated without reference to a cache (or caches). I think something must be added to annotate such things. I'll create a ticket for this improvement. 2017-04-19 22:04 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com>: > Alexei, > > I think AffinityKeyMapped supposed to work for ComputeJobs and any closures > executed by IgniteCompute, but it seems there are no tests for this and > this functionalty is broken now, and I think this should be fixed. > > Thanks, > Semyon > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Alexei Scherbakov < > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dmitriy, > > > > I know I could, but it requires too much work and messing with various > APIs > > for correct routing/failover. > > > > What about automatic partition reservation for consitency? How could I > > achieve what using only affinity API ? > > > > I think this should be available out of the box, as for affinityRun/Call. > > > > Moreover, I could say the same for affinityRun/Call. One can use affinity > > API and determine node to send a closure. Why bother with additional > > methods ? > > > > And javadoc in AffinityKeyMapped definitely should be fixed, because it > > refers to unexistent things. > > > > 2017-04-19 21:38 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > Alexey, > > > > > > Have you taken a look at the Affinity API in Ignite? It seems that it > has > > > all the functionality you may need to map partitions to nodes. You can > > take > > > that info, and use it to route your computations. > > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/ > > > apache/ignite/cache/affinity/Affinity.html > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Alexei Scherbakov < > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > Currently I'm looking into the problem how to properly deliver > > > computation > > > > to data in most efficient way. > > > > > > > > Basically I need to iterate over all cache partitions on all grid > > nodes, > > > > compute some function on each key-value pair and return aggregated > > result > > > > to a caller. > > > > > > > > This is a job for map-reduce API. > > > > > > > > But it seems where is no possibility to easily manage automatic > routing > > > and > > > > failover of compute jobs to data nodes containing specific > partitions. > > > > > > > > I found interesting paragraph in javadoc for @AffinityKeyMapped > > > annotation. > > > > > > > > Collocating Computations And Data > > > > It is also possible to route computations to the nodes where the data > > is > > > > cached. This concept is otherwise known as Collocation Of > Computations > > > And > > > > Data .... > > > > > > > > which makes strong sense for me. > > > > > > > > But in fact this is not working. Instead we only have automatic > > > routing(and > > > > failover) for special cases: affinityCall and affinityRun with > explicit > > > > partition. And it seems I can't longer use task sessions for them > with > > > > recent changes in Compute API (removed withAsync support) > > > > > > > > I think this is not OK and we should allow jobs to be automatically > > > routed > > > > to data if they have some annotation attached to them specifying > > > partition > > > > and cache names, same as for affinityCall/Run. Probably we should > > > introduce > > > > special task type for such workflows, something like > > AffinityComputeTask, > > > > without explicit mapping phase, for convenient usage. > > > > > > > > I'm willing to make a JIRA ticket for this. > > > > > > > > Thoughs ? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > -- Best regards, Alexei Scherbakov
