>> That's true, but it is not a good thing: numVirtNodes should be proportional >> with the node's capacity, i.e. more powerful machines in the cluster should >> have assigned more virtual nodes. >> This way we can better control the load. A node would need to send its >> configured numVirtualNodes when joining in order to support this, but that's >> a thing we already do for TACH. >> > > We should use a different mechanism than the TopologyAwareUUID we use > for TACH, because the address is sent with every command. so every command sends cluster, rack and machine info? That's sounds a bit redundant. Can't we just send them once with the JOIN request? > The capacity > instead should be fairly static. We may want to make it changeable at > runtime, but it will take a state transfer to propagate that info to > all the members of the cluster (because the nodes' CHs need to stay in > sync). > > In fact, I can imagine users wanting to balance key ownership between > machines/racks/sites with TACH, but without actually using RELAY - the > TopologyAwareUUID is just an overhead for them.
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev