Vovan, Would you argue that we should have the similar API in Java as Ignite.cache(CacheConfiguration) or Ignite.getOrCreateCache(CacheConfiguration)?
With a proposed solution, every other API call would rely on it finally. I am interested in having such feature not arguing about API alternatives. We definitely should have the ability to change it via control.sh and Java API. Everything else is optional from my point of view (at least on the current stage). Moreover, your arguments are more about our format of CacheConfiguration which couldn't be defined in other languages and clients. So, maybe we should start a discussion about how we should change it in 3.0? On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:45 PM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Ed, > > Why do we want to operate on CacheConfiguration so desperately? Your > example raises even more questions: > 1) What to do with thin clients? > 2) What to do with aforementioned race conditions, when cache could be > changed concurrently? > 3) Why such trivial operation from user perspective is only supported from > control.sh and not from the rest API (even Java client nodes will be > affected - remember our plans to remove requirement to have cache classes > on client nodes, which is yet to be implemented). > > Compare it to alternative API: > > 1) Native call from any language without limitations: > > Ignite.changeCache(CacheConfigurationChange.create().setCacheMode(REPLICATED).setBackups(2)); > > 2) Call from control.sh in one line without race conditions with concurrent > cache changes: > control.sh --cache --change cacheMode=REPLICATED backups=2 > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:32 PM Eduard Shangareev < > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Vovan, > > > > user already is able to get cache configuration as xml. > > control.sh --cache list '.' --config > > > > So, user could update it and run: > > control.sh --cache --restart -cfg=xml.path > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:06 PM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > He can do that programmatically. But I meant another case - Java node > > > creates a cache. Then .NET node wants to change it. Proposed API cannot > > > handle it. > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 19:03, Eduard Shangareev < > > eshangar...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > > > I didn't get how does .Net user start caches right now? XML and > remote > > > > node? Right? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:55 PM Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > > > > > We are not Java product. We support 6 platforms at the moment. Why > do > > > we > > > > > implement a feature which can only be used in Java, when it is very > > > easy > > > > to > > > > > make it available from everywhere? > > > > > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 18:50, Eduard Shangareev < > > > > eshangar...@gridgain.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be Java API specific. > > > > > > For a user, we would add a new command for console.sh which would > > > take > > > > an > > > > > > XML-file path as a parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > We could add other possibilities: for example, with the builder > > which > > > > > would > > > > > > finally call this Ignite.restartCaches method. But it's nice to > > have, > > > > > not a > > > > > > mandatory one. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:43 PM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please demonstrate how .NET node or .NET will change > > > cache > > > > > > > configuration with proposed API? Taking in count that XML is > not > > > > > > available > > > > > > > in most cases, and custom Java classes from cache configuration > > are > > > > > > > available only on server nodes and only from Java. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 18:36, Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see any difference here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same possibilities would be available as with normal > cache > > > > start: > > > > > > > > -XML; > > > > > > > > -remote node. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >3) Avoid race condition when configuration changes between > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > read and method call (what could lead to a number of strange > > > > > effects). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, we could add *old* configuration parameter for CAS-like > > > > > semantic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:26 PM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caches in .NET could be started programmatically, from XML > > > which > > > > > .NET > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > has no access to, or dynamically from remote nodes (eg Java > > > > node). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 18:24, Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does .Net user start caches right now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:10 PM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eduard, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple != correct. Let’s consider a simple use case: > user > > > > want > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > > PARTITIONED -> REPLICATED from .NET, but do not some > > > classes > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > CacheConfiguration. How do we solve this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 18:02, Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose not to change cache configuration in > runtime > > > but > > > > > > > restart > > > > > > > > > > cache > > > > > > > > > > > > with the new compatible configuration on data which > we > > > have > > > > > > > > > underfoot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we could change: > > > > > > > > > > > > -backup count; > > > > > > > > > > > > -TRANSACTIONAL <-> ATOMIC; > > > > > > > > > > > > -REPLICATED - PARTITIONED; > > > > > > > > > > > > -other settings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, yeah, it would be great to have a possibility to > > > change > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > properties > > > > > > > > > > > > in runtime. But right we don't any way to change > > anything > > > > > > except > > > > > > > > > > indexes > > > > > > > > > > > > and SQL fields. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have all mechanism to do this. > > > > > > > > > > > > The main issue is to make it reliable and exclude > cases > > > > when > > > > > we > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unrecoverable state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I suggest keeping the solution as simple as > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > For indexes clashes and ClassNotFoundException we > could > > > > > revert > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration update and start with the old > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:44 PM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eduard, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got it. Please take the following things in count > > > during > > > > > > > design: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Two distinct PMEs might not work well. Consider > a > > > > > > situation > > > > > > > > > w1hen > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > decided to move a cache with index "MY_INDEX" from > > > > schema A > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > While cache was stopped, another cache with index > > > > > "MY_INDEX" > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema B. Now first cache cannot start due to index > > > name > > > > > > > > conflict. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Cancelling index creation is also bad idea > because > > > > this > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > potentially > > > > > > > > > > > > > long operation. Instead, most likely that we should > > > wait > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > concurrent > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema operations to finish first. That is, all > > > > operations > > > > > on > > > > > > > > cache > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > be ordered wrt each other somehow > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Why do we think that cache restart will be > needed > > at > > > > > all? > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > lot > > > > > > > > > > > > > of configuration properties which could be changed > > > safely > > > > > > > either > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > > PME or with a single PME. - rebalance properties, > > cache > > > > > store > > > > > > > > > > > properties > > > > > > > > > > > > > (especially write-behind stuff), some query > > properties > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > "detail > > > > > > > > > > > > > metrics"), etc.. In essence, it seems that >50% of > > > > > properties > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed without cache restart, other 25% will not > be > > > > > > supported, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > rest may require restart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Client nodes and thin client may not have > > necessary > > > > > > classes > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > classpath. E.g. consider a user which want to > change > > > > > > rebalance > > > > > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache, but do not have configured interceptor in > > > > classpath. > > > > > > > With > > > > > > > > > > > proposed > > > > > > > > > > > > > API it will be impossible. This is especially true > > for > > > > > > non-Java > > > > > > > > > > > clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I think we should consider another API > > which > > > > > will > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > require > > > > > > > > > > > > > full CacheConfiguration object. This might be a > kind > > of > > > > > > builder > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > so. > > > > > > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > > > > > > once user set properties he want to change to the > > > > builder, > > > > > we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > analyze > > > > > > > > > > > > > them and either change them in runtime without PME, > > > > change > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > > > single > > > > > > > > > > > > > PME or change with full cache restart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:01 PM Eduard Shangareev < > > > > > > > > > > > > > eshangar...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Affinity could be changed, but count of > > partition > > > > > > couldn't > > > > > > > > be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) So it would trigger 2 PME. Dynamic start and > > stop. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) In theory, should cancel them and new setting > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > applied. > > > > > > > > > > > How > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works now? Create an index and stop node, for > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:56 PM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several questions from my side: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) If we do not allow to change the most > demanded > > > by > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > things > > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > affinity or persistence/in-memory, then what > kind > > > of > > > > > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properties do we expect to be changed? Can we > > have > > > > > > several > > > > > > > > > > > examples? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) How will it interact with PME? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) How will it interact with CREATE INDEX and > > ALTER > > > > > TABLE > > > > > > > > > > commands? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:48 PM Eduard > > Shangareev < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduard.shangar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose new public API to change the cache > > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > persistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > caches with keeping data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would look like: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite ignite = ...; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite.restartCaches(cfg1, ... cfgN); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where cfgX is a new cache configuration, > which > > > > > contains > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing persistent cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The obvious limitation: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - affinity key mapping couldn't be changed; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - count of partitions couldn't be changed; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MVCC couldn't be turned off/on; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - persistent couldn't be turned off; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - group settings couldn't be changed (group > > > name); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - if cache belongs to group it's needed to > > > restart > > > > > all > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Failure scenario is the crucial thing (and > most > > > > > > > difficult): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - initiator fail; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - cluster restart at any stage; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - joining/starting offline nodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some thoughts about implementation: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - stop cache with destroy=false; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - start cache dynamically with new > > configuration; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - if indexes settings changed - remove > > index.bin > > > to > > > > > > start > > > > > > > > > > > > indexation; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - change blt-history when start cache > initiated > > > to > > > > > not > > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > > > join > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with old configuration; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - use restartId (IGNITE-8911) to not allow to > > > start > > > > > > cache > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > between. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your thoughts? Would it be a useful feature? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eduard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Eduard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Eduard. > > > > > > > > > >
