On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Tristan Tarrant <ttarr...@redhat.com>wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 11:18 AM, Dan Berindei wrote: > > Hi guys > > > > As you know, I'm working on ISPN-3051, allowing each node to take a > > higher or lower proportion of the entries in the cache. I've > > implemented this by adding a float "loadFactor" setting in each node's > > configuration, with 1 being the default and any positive value being > > accepted (including 0). > > > > There are two questions I wanted to ask you about the configuration: > > > > 1. What do you think about the "loadFactor" name? I started having > > doubts about it, since it has a very different meaning in HashMap. I > > have come up with a couple alternatives, but I don't love any of them: > > "proportionalLoad" and "proportionalCapacity". > Since this is "per-node", you want to use the "node" word in there, so > "nodeCapacity" would be good. Can this value change at runtime ? > nodeCapacity by itself would sound like we're limiting the actual number of keys held on this node, so I feel it would be misleading. You do have a point about having "node" in the name though... how about "nodeScale"? The value can't change at runtime. TBH, I haven't even considered it. > > 2. Where should we put this setting? I have added it as > > CacheConfiguration.clustering().hash().loadFactor(), but I can't think > > of a reason for having different values for each cache, so we might as > > well put it in the global configuration. > Yes, global sounds good. And don't forget server :) > > I guess the others disagree, so I'll keep it at the cache level. I'll try to remember about server ;) Cheers Dan
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev