Val, AFAIK, affinityRun/Call has guarantee to be successfully executed on unstable topology in case partition was not losed, only relocated to another node during rebalancing.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alexey, > > Is there exact use case that is currently not supported? I really would > like to see one, because such a big API change should add clear value. > ComputeGrid is not used very often, and so far I've never seen any > questions from users about using it in conjunction with affinity > collocation. > > What if we solve this on job level instead by adding the following > interface: > > interface AffinityComputeJob extends ComputeJob { > String cacheName(); > Object affinityKey(); > } > > Whenever load balancer sees this job, it maps it based on affinity. Will > this work? > > -Val > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Anton, > > > > How does topology change break this functionality? Closures executed with > > affinityRun/Call fail over in the same way as any ComputeJob. > > > > -Val > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Anton Vinogradov < > > avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > > >> Alexei, > >> > >> > How would task know the partition it is running over ? > >> Not sure it necessary. > >> You'll create pair partition-job at task's map phase. > >> > >> > How can I assign task for each cache partition ? > >> Just implement map method generates map with size equals to partition > >> count. > >> > >> > How can I enforce partition reservation if task works with multiple > >> caches at once ? > >> This possible only in case caches use safe affinity function. > >> And it useful only it this case. > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Alexei Scherbakov < > >> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Please read job instead task > >> > > >> > 2017-07-25 15:20 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov < > >> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com > >> > >: > >> > > >> > > Main point of the issue is to provide clean API for working with > >> > > computations requiring data collocation > >> > > > >> > > affinityCall/Run provide the ability to run closure near data, but > >> > > map/reduce API is a way reacher: continuous mapping, task session, > >> etc. > >> > > > >> > > As for proposed API, I do not understand fully how it solves the > >> problem. > >> > > > >> > > Maxim, please provide detailed javadoc for each method and each > >> argument > >> > > for presented API, and the answers to the following questions: > >> > > > >> > > 1. How would task know the partition it is running over ? > >> > > > >> > > 2. How can I assign task for each cache partition ? > >> > > > >> > > 3. How can I enforce partition reservation if task works with > multiple > >> > > caches at once ? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2017-07-25 12:30 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov < > avinogra...@gridgain.com > >> >: > >> > > > >> > >> Val, > >> > >> > >> > >> Sure, we can, but we'd like to use map/reduce without fearing that > >> > >> topology > >> > >> can change. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >> > >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Anton, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > You can call affinityCallAsync multiple times and then reduce > >> locally. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -Val > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Anton Vinogradov < > >> > >> > avinogra...@gridgain.com> > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Val, > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > What is the use case for which current affinityRun/Call API > >> > doesn't > >> > >> > work? > >> > >> > > It does not work for map/reduce. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >> > >> > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Maxim, > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > The issue is that it's currently assumed to support job > >> mapping, > >> > >> but it > >> > >> > > > actually doesn't. However, I agree that AffinityKeyMapped > >> > annotation > >> > >> > > > doesn't fit the use case well. Let's fix documentation and > >> JavaDoc > >> > >> > then. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > As for the proposed API, it's overcomplicated, took me 15 > >> minutes > >> > to > >> > >> > > > understand what it does :) > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > What is the use case for which current affinityRun/Call API > >> > doesn't > >> > >> > work? > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > -Val > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Kozlov Maxim < > >> > dreamx....@gmail.com > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Valentin, > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > The author of tiket wants to see to provide some API allows > >> to > >> > map > >> > >> > > > > ComputeJobs to partitions or keys. If we use > >> @AffinityKeyMapped > >> > >> then > >> > >> > > you > >> > >> > > > > need to enter the cache name parameter, I think this is not > >> > >> > convenient > >> > >> > > > for > >> > >> > > > > the user. Therefore, I propose to extend the existing API. > >> > >> > > > > Having consulted with Anton V. decided to make a separate > >> > >> interface > >> > >> > > > > ReducibleTask, which will allow us to have different map > >> logic > >> > at > >> > >> > each > >> > >> > > > > inheritor. > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Old method, allows to map to node > >> > >> > > > > public interface ComputeTask<T, R> extends > ReducibleTask<R> { > >> > >> > > > > @Nullable public Map<? extends ComputeJob, ClusterNode> > >> > >> > > > > map(List<ClusterNode> subgrid, @Nullable T arg) throws > >> > >> > IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > } > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Brand new method with mapping to partitions, which solves > >> > topology > >> > >> > > change > >> > >> > > > > issues. > >> > >> > > > > public interface AffinityComputeTask<T, R> extends > >> > >> ReducibleTask<R> { > >> > >> > > > > @Nullable public Map<? extends ComputeJob, Integer> > >> > >> > > > map(@NotnullString > >> > >> > > > > cacheName, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws > >> > >> > > > IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > } > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > public interface ReducibleTask<R> extends Serializable { > >> > >> > > > > public ComputeJobResultPolicy result(ComputeJobResult > >> res, > >> > >> > > > > List<ComputeJobResult> rcvd) throws IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > @Nullable public R reduce(List<ComputeJobResult> > results) > >> > >> throws > >> > >> > > > > IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > } > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > We also need to implement AffinityComputeTaskAdapter and > >> > >> > > > > AffinityComputeTaskSplitAdapter, for implementation by > >> default. > >> > >> It > >> > >> > is > >> > >> > > > > right? > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > In the IgniteCompute add: > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > @IgniteAsyncSupported > >> > >> > > > > public <T, R> R affinityExecute(Class<? extends > >> > >> > AffinityComputeTask<T, > >> > >> > > > R>> > >> > >> > > > > taskCls, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws > >> > >> > > IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > @IgniteAsyncSupported > >> > >> > > > > public <T, R> R affinityExecute(AffinityComputeTask<T, R> > >> task, > >> > >> > > > > List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws > >> IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > public <T, R> ComputeTaskFuture<R> > >> affinityExecuteAsync(Class<? > >> > >> > extends > >> > >> > > > > AffinityComputeTask<T, R>> taskCls, List<Integer> partIds, > >> > >> @Nullable > >> > >> > T > >> > >> > > > arg) > >> > >> > > > > throws IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > public <T, R> ComputeTaskFuture<R> affinityExecuteAsync( > >> > >> > > > AffinityComputeTask<T, > >> > >> > > > > R> task, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws > >> > >> > > IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > How do you like this idea or do you insist that you need to > >> use > >> > >> > > > > @AffinityKeyMapped to solve the problem? > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 13 июля 2017 г., в 6:36, Valentin Kulichenko < > >> > >> > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> написал(а): > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Hi Max, > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > This ticket doesn't assume any API changes, it's about > >> broken > >> > >> > > > > > functionality. I would start with checking what tests we > >> have > >> > >> > > > > > for @AffinityKeyMapped and creating missing one. From > what > >> I > >> > >> > > understand > >> > >> > > > > > functionality is broken completely or almost completely, > >> so I > >> > >> guess > >> > >> > > > > testing > >> > >> > > > > > coverage is very weak there. > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > -Val > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Kozlov Maxim < > >> > >> > dreamx....@gmail.com> > >> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Igniters, > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5037 > < > >> > >> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5037> > >> > >> > > > > >> How do you look to solve this ticket by adding two > >> methods to > >> > >> the > >> > >> > > > public > >> > >> > > > > >> IgniteCompute API? > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> @IgniteAsyncSupported > >> > >> > > > > >> public void affinityRun(@NotNull Collection<String> > >> > cacheNames, > >> > >> > > > > >> Collection<Object> keys, IgniteRunnable job) > >> > >> > > > > >> throws IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> @IgniteAsyncSupported > >> > >> > > > > >> public <R> R affinityCall(@NotNull Collection<String> > >> > >> cacheNames, > >> > >> > > > > >> Collection<Object> keys, IgniteCallable<R> job) > >> > >> > > > > >> throws IgniteException; > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> There is also a question of how to act when changing the > >> > >> topology > >> > >> > > > during > >> > >> > > > > >> the execution of the job. > >> > >> > > > > >> 1) complete with an exception; > >> > >> > > > > >> 2) stop execution and wait until the topology is rebuilt > >> and > >> > >> > > continue > >> > >> > > > > >> execution; > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> I think the second way, do you think? > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> -- > >> > >> > > > > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> > > > > >> Max K. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > -- > >> > >> > > > > Best Regards, > >> > >> > > > > Max K. > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > Alexei Scherbakov > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > Alexei Scherbakov > >> > > >> > > > > >