Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Just catching up on this thread so take it FWIW. The “new management API” is intended to become the one-and-only way to configure the system. That means that eventually cache.xml, gfsh, existing API’s, etc. will only be able to configure features supported by this new API. I think the implication is that if a feature is NOT supported by the v2 API, it effectively doesn’t exist and might as well be removed from the product itself. For gfsh in particular, I assume we’ll want to switch it over to use the new REST endpoints. The configuration points supported by those endpoints need to be congruent with gfsh (or we change gfsh). Of course, we can always sequence work into small chunks and deliver incrementally instead of all-at-once. Anthony > On Aug 21, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Darrel Schneider wrote: > > Given the current types that gfsh supports, I don't see that it will be > lots of validation. We have the redundancy level to validate for the > REDUNDANT types. And we have HEAP_LRU and OVERFLOW to validate. That is it. > The only other thing is the partition only attributes should be rejected > when creating a replicate. I think we should just support the types "gfsh > create region" does. > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > >> Maybe to clarify what I said before (which was certainly unclear ), I am >> not saying we only allow users to create limited set of types of region, we >> COULD still support all of them, but we should not limit ourselves to the >> current ways of doing things. Currently, a flat model of region >> configuration which holds a type and all the possible attributes any type >> of region can have, could lead to these problems: >> 1. the type may be contradictory/redundant to a particular property: >> for example, the type could "PARTITION_REDUNDANT", but the >> redundantCopies is set to be 0. And the type could be "PARTITION_OVERFLOW", >> but the eviction action is set to be "LOCAL_DESTROY". To avoid this, we >> will need to do a lot of front end validation in order to accept this >> configuration, which is possible to do, but is it really necessary? Should >> we somehow limit the type to something that really indicate the "type" >> instead of just a shortcut that actually sets a set of attributes. >> >> 2. the object can hold lots of unnecessary attributes that only pertains to >> a particular type >> for example, redundantCopies doesn't really apply to replicate regions, but >> it's there for you to configure. >> >> Just some more food for thought. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:34 PM Charlie Black wrote: >> >>> Yes it is common for 0,1 and 2. 3 enters into gray space of is the cost >>> of redundancy worth it. >>> >>> So voting for exposing the number of copies to be the same as Apache >> Geode >>> Java API. >>> >>> Charlie >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Darrel Schneider >> >>> wrote: >>> The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant >> copies. >>> Is redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api >> to support it? On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > +1 to Alexander’s statement. > > Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the >>> common > use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy >> regions >>> on > the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first >> for the > initial release. > > -jake > >> On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann < >> amurm...@apache.org > wrote: >> >> Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps >>> have > no >> impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < dschnei...@pivotal.io >> >> wrote: >> >>> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the >> members of > a >>> cluster to always be uniform? >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao wrote: So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to >>> drop support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also >>> experimenting >>> using different object types to represent different types of region, >> for >>> example, redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > Instead of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these >>> values > and holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for >> that > type, should just have a factory method that given these region >>> shortcuts, we would return a specific region object that's determined by this >>> type? > On Tue, Aug
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Given the current types that gfsh supports, I don't see that it will be lots of validation. We have the redundancy level to validate for the REDUNDANT types. And we have HEAP_LRU and OVERFLOW to validate. That is it. The only other thing is the partition only attributes should be rejected when creating a replicate. I think we should just support the types "gfsh create region" does. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > Maybe to clarify what I said before (which was certainly unclear ), I am > not saying we only allow users to create limited set of types of region, we > COULD still support all of them, but we should not limit ourselves to the > current ways of doing things. Currently, a flat model of region > configuration which holds a type and all the possible attributes any type > of region can have, could lead to these problems: > 1. the type may be contradictory/redundant to a particular property: > for example, the type could "PARTITION_REDUNDANT", but the > redundantCopies is set to be 0. And the type could be "PARTITION_OVERFLOW", > but the eviction action is set to be "LOCAL_DESTROY". To avoid this, we > will need to do a lot of front end validation in order to accept this > configuration, which is possible to do, but is it really necessary? Should > we somehow limit the type to something that really indicate the "type" > instead of just a shortcut that actually sets a set of attributes. > > 2. the object can hold lots of unnecessary attributes that only pertains to > a particular type > for example, redundantCopies doesn't really apply to replicate regions, but > it's there for you to configure. > > Just some more food for thought. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:34 PM Charlie Black wrote: > > > Yes it is common for 0,1 and 2. 3 enters into gray space of is the cost > > of redundancy worth it. > > > > So voting for exposing the number of copies to be the same as Apache > Geode > > Java API. > > > > Charlie > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Darrel Schneider > > > wrote: > > > > > The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant > copies. > > Is > > > redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api > to > > > support it? > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to Alexander’s statement. > > > > > > > > Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the > > common > > > > use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy > regions > > on > > > > the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first > for > > > the > > > > initial release. > > > > > > > > -jake > > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann < > amurm...@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps > > have > > > > no > > > > > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < > > > dschnei...@pivotal.io > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the > members > > > of > > > > a > > > > >> cluster to always be uniform? > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to > > drop > > > > >>> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also > > experimenting > > > > >> using > > > > >>> different object types to represent different types of region, > for > > > > >> example, > > > > >>> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > > > > Instead > > > > >>> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these > > values > > > > and > > > > >>> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for > that > > > > type, > > > > >>> should just have a factory method that given these region > > shortcuts, > > > we > > > > >>> would return a specific region object that's determined by this > > type? > > > > >>> > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no > > ability > > > > >> for a > > > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create > > regions > > > > >> (via > > > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > > > > >> create a > > > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > > > > another > > > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is > not > > > > >>> possible. > > > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz < > mst...@pivotal.io> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Maybe to clarify what I said before (which was certainly unclear ), I am not saying we only allow users to create limited set of types of region, we COULD still support all of them, but we should not limit ourselves to the current ways of doing things. Currently, a flat model of region configuration which holds a type and all the possible attributes any type of region can have, could lead to these problems: 1. the type may be contradictory/redundant to a particular property: for example, the type could "PARTITION_REDUNDANT", but the redundantCopies is set to be 0. And the type could be "PARTITION_OVERFLOW", but the eviction action is set to be "LOCAL_DESTROY". To avoid this, we will need to do a lot of front end validation in order to accept this configuration, which is possible to do, but is it really necessary? Should we somehow limit the type to something that really indicate the "type" instead of just a shortcut that actually sets a set of attributes. 2. the object can hold lots of unnecessary attributes that only pertains to a particular type for example, redundantCopies doesn't really apply to replicate regions, but it's there for you to configure. Just some more food for thought. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:34 PM Charlie Black wrote: > Yes it is common for 0,1 and 2. 3 enters into gray space of is the cost > of redundancy worth it. > > So voting for exposing the number of copies to be the same as Apache Geode > Java API. > > Charlie > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Darrel Schneider > wrote: > > > The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant copies. > Is > > redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api to > > support it? > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett > > wrote: > > > > > +1 to Alexander’s statement. > > > > > > Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the > common > > > use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy regions > on > > > the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first for > > the > > > initial release. > > > > > > -jake > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps > have > > > no > > > > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < > > dschnei...@pivotal.io > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members > > of > > > a > > > >> cluster to always be uniform? > > > >> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to > drop > > > >>> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > > >>> > > > >>> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also > experimenting > > > >> using > > > >>> different object types to represent different types of region, for > > > >> example, > > > >>> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > > > Instead > > > >>> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these > values > > > and > > > >>> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > > > type, > > > >>> should just have a factory method that given these region > shortcuts, > > we > > > >>> would return a specific region object that's determined by this > type? > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe > > wrote: > > > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no > ability > > > >> for a > > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create > regions > > > >> (via > > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > > > >> create a > > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > > > another > > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > > > >>> possible. > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to > > > >> host > > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that > > in > > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of > the > > > >>> server > > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > > > >>> cache.xml > > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm > > not > > > sure. > > > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > > > backward > > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mike Stolz > > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Yes it is common for 0,1 and 2. 3 enters into gray space of is the cost of redundancy worth it. So voting for exposing the number of copies to be the same as Apache Geode Java API. Charlie On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Darrel Schneider wrote: > The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant copies. Is > redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api to > support it? > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett > wrote: > > > +1 to Alexander’s statement. > > > > Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the common > > use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy regions on > > the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first for > the > > initial release. > > > > -jake > > > > > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann > > wrote: > > > > > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps have > > no > > > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < > dschnei...@pivotal.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members > of > > a > > >> cluster to always be uniform? > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop > > >>> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > >>> > > >>> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting > > >> using > > >>> different object types to represent different types of region, for > > >> example, > > >>> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > > Instead > > >>> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values > > and > > >>> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > > type, > > >>> should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, > we > > >>> would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? > > >>> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe > wrote: > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability > > >> for a > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions > > >> (via > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > > >> create a > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > > another > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > > >>> possible. > > > > --Jens > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz > > >> wrote: > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to > > >> host > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that > in > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the > > >>> server > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > > >>> cache.xml > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm > not > > sure. > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > > backward > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > -- > > > Mike Stolz > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > > >>> dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > > cluster. > > > So > > >> these regions would be created on servers. > > >> So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on > > >>> the > > >> server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would > > >>> still > > > be > > >> supported on clients. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao > > >>> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > > > attributes > > >>> for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > >>> > > >>> LOCAL, > > >>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > >>> LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > >>> LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > >>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > >>> > > >>> PARTITION, > > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > >>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > >>> PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > >>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > >>> PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > >>> > > >>> REPLICATE, > > >>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > >>> REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > >>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > >>> REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > >>> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
And if there the old way of specifying types/shortcuts was somehow counter-intuitive, 'cause I did from time to time, hearing things like "I wish we did things differently", this is our chance of correcting it. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 6:47 PM Jacob Barrett wrote: > If you code it you have to test it. An all or nothing approach will take > longer to deliver any value. Breaking it into a priority set and committing > the sets gives immediate value. > > > On Aug 20, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Michael Stolz wrote: > > > > I'm not at all sure why supporting the current set is more work than a > > subset. Are we planning to fix issues in the current implementation in > the > > new API rather than the underlying (still needed) existing API? How is > that > > a good idea? > > > > > > > > -- > > Mike Stolz > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 9:09 PM Anilkumar Gingade > wrote: > >> > >> My vote is for supporting all the region type currently supported. As > mike > >> was pointing, we have seen usecases where different regions are used for > >> specific application needs. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:09 PM Darrel Schneider > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> gfsh create region currently does not support "distributed-no-ack" nor > >>> "global". I did not find in jira a feature request for gfsh to support > >>> these. So I think it would be safe for the Geode Management REST API to > >>> also not support those scopes. > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:10 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > > Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely > >> support > "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more > groups. > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < > >> dschnei...@pivotal.io > > wrote: > > > Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members > >>> of a > > cluster to always be uniform? > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao > >> wrote: > > > >> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to > >> drop > >> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > >> > >> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also > >> experimenting > > using > >> different object types to represent different types of region, for > > example, > >> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > Instead > >> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these > >> values > and > >> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > type, > >> should just have a factory method that given these region > >> shortcuts, > >>> we > >> would return a specific region object that's determined by this > >> type? > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no > >> ability > > for a > >>> user to group members thus it is also not possible to create > >>> regions > > (via > >>> gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > > create a > >>> PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > another > >>> group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > >> possible. > >>> > >>> --Jens > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz >>> > > wrote: > >>> > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side > >> to > > host > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do > >> that > in > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of > >>> the > >> server > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > >> cache.xml > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but > >> I'm > not > >>> sure. > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not > >> go > >>> backward > to the separate attributes. > > -- > Mike Stolz > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > >> dschnei...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is > >> the > >>> cluster. > So > > these regions would be created on servers. > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY > >> regions > on > >> the > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they > >>> would > >> still > be > > supported on clients. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao < > >>
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
If you code it you have to test it. An all or nothing approach will take longer to deliver any value. Breaking it into a priority set and committing the sets gives immediate value. > On Aug 20, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Michael Stolz wrote: > > I'm not at all sure why supporting the current set is more work than a > subset. Are we planning to fix issues in the current implementation in the > new API rather than the underlying (still needed) existing API? How is that > a good idea? > > > > -- > Mike Stolz > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 9:09 PM Anilkumar Gingade wrote: >> >> My vote is for supporting all the region type currently supported. As mike >> was pointing, we have seen usecases where different regions are used for >> specific application needs. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:09 PM Darrel Schneider >> wrote: >> >>> gfsh create region currently does not support "distributed-no-ack" nor >>> "global". I did not find in jira a feature request for gfsh to support >>> these. So I think it would be safe for the Geode Management REST API to >>> also not support those scopes. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:10 PM Kirk Lund wrote: Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely >> support "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more groups. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < >> dschnei...@pivotal.io wrote: > Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members >>> of a > cluster to always be uniform? > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao >> wrote: > >> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to >> drop >> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? >> >> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also >> experimenting > using >> different object types to represent different types of region, for > example, >> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. Instead >> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these >> values and >> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that type, >> should just have a factory method that given these region >> shortcuts, >>> we >> would return a specific region object that's determined by this >> type? >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe >>> wrote: >> >>> Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no >> ability > for a >>> user to group members thus it is also not possible to create >>> regions > (via >>> gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > create a >>> PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against another >>> group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not >> possible. >>> >>> --Jens >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz >> > wrote: >>> I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side >> to > host logic associated with the region, but I think they always do >> that in conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of >>> the >> server and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way >> cache.xml works they might not even bother with the server groups, but >> I'm not >>> sure. I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not >> go >>> backward to the separate attributes. -- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < >> dschnei...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is >> the >>> cluster. So > these regions would be created on servers. > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY >> regions on >> the > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they >>> would >> still be > supported on clients. > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao < >> jil...@pivotal.io >> wrote: > >> Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set >>> of attributes >> for a region. These are the list of region types we have: >> >> LOCAL, >> LOCAL_PERSISTENT, >> LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, >> LOCAL_OVERFLOW, >> LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >> >> PARTITION, >> PARTITION_REDUNDANT, >> PARTITION_PERSISTENT, >> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, >> PARTITION_OVERFLOW,
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
I'm not at all sure why supporting the current set is more work than a subset. Are we planning to fix issues in the current implementation in the new API rather than the underlying (still needed) existing API? How is that a good idea? -- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 9:09 PM Anilkumar Gingade wrote: > My vote is for supporting all the region type currently supported. As mike > was pointing, we have seen usecases where different regions are used for > specific application needs. > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:09 PM Darrel Schneider > wrote: > > > gfsh create region currently does not support "distributed-no-ack" nor > > "global". I did not find in jira a feature request for gfsh to support > > these. So I think it would be safe for the Geode Management REST API to > > also not support those scopes. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:10 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > > > > > Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely > support > > > "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more > > > groups. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < > dschnei...@pivotal.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members > > of a > > > > cluster to always be uniform? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to > drop > > > > > support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > > > > > > > > > Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also > experimenting > > > > using > > > > > different object types to represent different types of region, for > > > > example, > > > > > redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > > > Instead > > > > > of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these > values > > > and > > > > > holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > > > type, > > > > > should just have a factory method that given these region > shortcuts, > > we > > > > > would return a specific region object that's determined by this > type? > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no > ability > > > > for a > > > > > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create > > regions > > > > (via > > > > > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > > > > create a > > > > > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > > > another > > > > > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side > to > > > > host > > > > > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do > that > > > in > > > > > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of > > the > > > > > server > > > > > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > > > > > cache.xml > > > > > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but > I'm > > > not > > > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not > go > > > > > > backward > > > > > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Mike Stolz > > > > > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > > > > > dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is > the > > > > > > cluster. > > > > > > > So > > > > > > > > these regions would be created on servers. > > > > > > > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY > regions > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they > > would > > > > > still > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > supported on clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao < > jil...@pivotal.io > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set > > of > > > > > > > attributes > > > > > > > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
My vote is for supporting all the region type currently supported. As mike was pointing, we have seen usecases where different regions are used for specific application needs. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:09 PM Darrel Schneider wrote: > gfsh create region currently does not support "distributed-no-ack" nor > "global". I did not find in jira a feature request for gfsh to support > these. So I think it would be safe for the Geode Management REST API to > also not support those scopes. > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:10 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > > > Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely support > > "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more > > groups. > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider > > > wrote: > > > > > Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members > of a > > > cluster to always be uniform? > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao wrote: > > > > > > > So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop > > > > support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > > > > > > > Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting > > > using > > > > different object types to represent different types of region, for > > > example, > > > > redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > > Instead > > > > of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values > > and > > > > holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > > type, > > > > should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, > we > > > > would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability > > > for a > > > > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create > regions > > > (via > > > > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > > > create a > > > > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > > another > > > > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to > > > host > > > > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that > > in > > > > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of > the > > > > server > > > > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > > > > cache.xml > > > > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm > > not > > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > > > > > backward > > > > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Mike Stolz > > > > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > > > > dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > > > > > cluster. > > > > > > So > > > > > > > these regions would be created on servers. > > > > > > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions > > on > > > > the > > > > > > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they > would > > > > still > > > > > > be > > > > > > > supported on clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set > of > > > > > > attributes > > > > > > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE, > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In region management rest api,
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
gfsh create region currently does not support "distributed-no-ack" nor "global". I did not find in jira a feature request for gfsh to support these. So I think it would be safe for the Geode Management REST API to also not support those scopes. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:10 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely support > "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more > groups. > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider > wrote: > > > Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members of a > > cluster to always be uniform? > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao wrote: > > > > > So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop > > > support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > > > > > Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting > > using > > > different object types to represent different types of region, for > > example, > > > redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > Instead > > > of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values > and > > > holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > type, > > > should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, we > > > would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe wrote: > > > > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability > > for a > > > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions > > (via > > > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > > create a > > > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > another > > > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > > > possible. > > > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to > > host > > > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that > in > > > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the > > > server > > > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > > > cache.xml > > > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm > not > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > > > > backward > > > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Mike Stolz > > > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > > > dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > > > > cluster. > > > > > So > > > > > > these regions would be created on servers. > > > > > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions > on > > > the > > > > > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would > > > still > > > > > be > > > > > > supported on clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > > > > > attributes > > > > > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE, > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > > > > > wondering > > > > > > > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through > > > management > > > > > rest > > > > > > > api? > > > > > > > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through > > > management > > > > > rest > > > > > > > api? > > > > > > > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should > we > > > > > strive > > > > > > to > > > > > > > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the > > type > > > > as > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely support "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more groups. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider wrote: > Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members of a > cluster to always be uniform? > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao wrote: > > > So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop > > support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > > > Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting > using > > different object types to represent different types of region, for > example, > > redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. Instead > > of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values and > > holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that type, > > should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, we > > would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe wrote: > > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability > for a > > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions > (via > > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > create a > > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against another > > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > > possible. > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz > wrote: > > > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to > host > > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in > > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the > > server > > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > > cache.xml > > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not > > > sure. > > > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > > > backward > > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mike Stolz > > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > > dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > > > cluster. > > > > So > > > > > these regions would be created on servers. > > > > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on > > the > > > > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would > > still > > > > be > > > > > supported on clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > > > > attributes > > > > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE, > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > > > > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > > > > wondering > > > > > > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through > > management > > > > rest > > > > > > api? > > > > > > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through > > management > > > > rest > > > > > > api? > > > > > > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we > > > > strive > > > > > to > > > > > > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the > type > > > as > > > > > > REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like > "redundantCopy" > > > and > > > > > > "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region > > > attributes? > > > > > > > > > > > > comments appreciated! > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Jinmei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > > > Jinmei > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
By far the most common region "scope" is distributed-ack. We think LOCAL scope is hardly ever used. Partitioned regions ignore the scope and automatically use "distributed-ack". Should the default scope of "distributed-no-ack" be supported by the rest management api for replicates? Should the scope of "global" be supported by the rest management api for replicates? On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Darrel Schneider wrote: > The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant copies. > Is redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api to > support it? > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett > wrote: > >> +1 to Alexander’s statement. >> >> Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the common >> use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy regions on >> the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first for the >> initial release. >> >> -jake >> >> > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann >> wrote: >> > >> > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps have >> no >> > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < >> dschnei...@pivotal.io> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members >> of a >> >> cluster to always be uniform? >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop >> >>> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? >> >>> >> >>> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting >> >> using >> >>> different object types to represent different types of region, for >> >> example, >> >>> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. >> Instead >> >>> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values >> and >> >>> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that >> type, >> >>> should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, >> we >> >>> would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe >> wrote: >> >> Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability >> >> for a >> user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions >> >> (via >> gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would >> >> create a >> PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against >> another >> group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not >> >>> possible. >> >> --Jens >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz >> >> wrote: >> >> > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to >> >> host >> > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in >> > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the >> >>> server >> > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way >> >>> cache.xml >> > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not >> sure. >> > >> > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go >> backward >> > to the separate attributes. >> > >> > -- >> > Mike Stolz >> > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache >> > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < >> >>> dschnei...@pivotal.io> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the >> cluster. >> > So >> >> these regions would be created on servers. >> >> So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on >> >>> the >> >> server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would >> >>> still >> > be >> >> supported on clients. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of >> > attributes >> >>> for a region. These are the list of region types we have: >> >>> >> >>> LOCAL, >> >>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT, >> >>> LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, >> >>> LOCAL_OVERFLOW, >> >>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >> >>> >> >>> PARTITION, >> >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT, >> >>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT, >> >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, >> >>> PARTITION_OVERFLOW, >> >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, >> >>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >> >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >> >>> PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, >> >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, >> >>> >> >>> REPLICATE, >> >>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, >> >>> REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, >> >>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >> >>>
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant copies. Is redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api to support it? On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > +1 to Alexander’s statement. > > Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the common > use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy regions on > the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first for the > initial release. > > -jake > > > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann > wrote: > > > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps have > no > > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider > > > wrote: > > > >> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members of > a > >> cluster to always be uniform? > >> > >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao wrote: > >>> > >>> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop > >>> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > >>> > >>> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting > >> using > >>> different object types to represent different types of region, for > >> example, > >>> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > Instead > >>> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values > and > >>> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > type, > >>> should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, we > >>> would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? > >>> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe wrote: > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability > >> for a > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions > >> (via > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > >> create a > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > another > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > >>> possible. > > --Jens > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz > >> wrote: > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to > >> host > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the > >>> server > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > >>> cache.xml > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not > sure. > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > backward > > to the separate attributes. > > > > -- > > Mike Stolz > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > >>> dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > >> Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > cluster. > > So > >> these regions would be created on servers. > >> So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on > >>> the > >> server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would > >>> still > > be > >> supported on clients. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > > attributes > >>> for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > >>> > >>> LOCAL, > >>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > >>> LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > >>> LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > >>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > >>> > >>> PARTITION, > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > >>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > >>> PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > >>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > >>> PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > >>> > >>> REPLICATE, > >>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > >>> REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > >>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > >>> REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > >>> > >>> REPLICATE_PROXY, > >>> PARTITION_PROXY, > >>> PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > >>> > >>> In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > > wondering > >>> 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through > >>> management > > rest > >>> api? > >>> 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through > >>> management > > rest > >>> api? > >>> 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we > > strive > >> to > >>> keep the region type list the same as
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
+1 to Alexander’s statement. Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the common use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy regions on the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first for the initial release. -jake > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps have no > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. > > Thanks! > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider > wrote: > >> Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members of a >> cluster to always be uniform? >> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao wrote: >>> >>> So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop >>> support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? >>> >>> Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting >> using >>> different object types to represent different types of region, for >> example, >>> redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. Instead >>> of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values and >>> holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that type, >>> should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, we >>> would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe wrote: Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability >> for a user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions >> (via gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would >> create a PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against another group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not >>> possible. --Jens On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz >> wrote: > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to >> host > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the >>> server > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way >>> cache.xml > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not sure. > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go backward > to the separate attributes. > > -- > Mike Stolz > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < >>> dschnei...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the cluster. > So >> these regions would be created on servers. >> So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on >>> the >> server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would >>> still > be >> supported on clients. >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao >>> wrote: >> >>> Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > attributes >>> for a region. These are the list of region types we have: >>> >>> LOCAL, >>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT, >>> LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, >>> LOCAL_OVERFLOW, >>> LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >>> >>> PARTITION, >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT, >>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT, >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, >>> PARTITION_OVERFLOW, >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, >>> PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >>> PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, >>> PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, >>> >>> REPLICATE, >>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, >>> REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, >>> REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, >>> REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, >>> >>> REPLICATE_PROXY, >>> PARTITION_PROXY, >>> PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, >>> >>> In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > wondering >>> 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through >>> management > rest >>> api? >>> 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through >>> management > rest >>> api? >>> 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we > strive >> to >>> keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the >> type as >>> REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like >> "redundantCopy" and >>> "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region attributes? >>> >>> comments appreciated! >>> -- >>> Cheers >>> >>> Jinmei >>> >> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers >>> >>> Jinmei >>> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps have no impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. Thanks! On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider wrote: > Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members of a > cluster to always be uniform? > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao wrote: > > > So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop > > support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > > > Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting > using > > different object types to represent different types of region, for > example, > > redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. Instead > > of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values and > > holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that type, > > should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, we > > would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe wrote: > > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability > for a > > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions > (via > > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > create a > > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against another > > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > > possible. > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz > wrote: > > > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to > host > > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in > > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the > > server > > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > > cache.xml > > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not > > > sure. > > > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > > > backward > > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mike Stolz > > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > > dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > > > cluster. > > > > So > > > > > these regions would be created on servers. > > > > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on > > the > > > > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would > > still > > > > be > > > > > supported on clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > > > > attributes > > > > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE, > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > > > > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > > > > wondering > > > > > > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through > > management > > > > rest > > > > > > api? > > > > > > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through > > management > > > > rest > > > > > > api? > > > > > > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we > > > > strive > > > > > to > > > > > > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the > type > > > as > > > > > > REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like > "redundantCopy" > > > and > > > > > > "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region > > > attributes? > > > > > > > > > > > > comments appreciated! > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Jinmei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > > > Jinmei > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members of a cluster to always be uniform? On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao wrote: > So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop > support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting using > different object types to represent different types of region, for example, > redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. Instead > of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values and > holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that type, > should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, we > would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe wrote: > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability for a > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions (via > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would create a > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against another > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > possible. > > > > --Jens > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz wrote: > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to host > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the > server > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > cache.xml > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not > > sure. > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > > backward > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > -- > > > Mike Stolz > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > > cluster. > > > So > > > > these regions would be created on servers. > > > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on > the > > > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would > still > > > be > > > > supported on clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > > > attributes > > > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > > > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE, > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > > > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > > > wondering > > > > > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through > management > > > rest > > > > > api? > > > > > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through > management > > > rest > > > > > api? > > > > > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we > > > strive > > > > to > > > > > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the type > > as > > > > > REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like "redundantCopy" > > and > > > > > "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region > > attributes? > > > > > > > > > > comments appreciated! > > > > > -- > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > Jinmei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Jinmei >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to drop support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also experimenting using different object types to represent different types of region, for example, redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. Instead of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these values and holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that type, should just have a factory method that given these region shortcuts, we would return a specific region object that's determined by this type? On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe wrote: > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability for a > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions (via > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would create a > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against another > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not possible. > > --Jens > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz wrote: > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to host > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the server > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way cache.xml > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not > sure. > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > backward > > to the separate attributes. > > > > -- > > Mike Stolz > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider > > wrote: > > > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the > cluster. > > So > > > these regions would be created on servers. > > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on the > > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would still > > be > > > supported on clients. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > > > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > > attributes > > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > REPLICATE, > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > > wondering > > > > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through management > > rest > > > > api? > > > > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through management > > rest > > > > api? > > > > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we > > strive > > > to > > > > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the type > as > > > > REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like "redundantCopy" > and > > > > "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region > attributes? > > > > > > > > comments appreciated! > > > > -- > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Jinmei > > > > > > > > > > -- Cheers Jinmei
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no ability for a user to group members thus it is also not possible to create regions (via gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would create a PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against another group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not possible. --Jens On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz wrote: > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to host > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the server > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way cache.xml > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not sure. > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go backward > to the separate attributes. > > -- > Mike Stolz > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider > wrote: > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the cluster. > So > > these regions would be created on servers. > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on the > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would still > be > > supported on clients. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of > attributes > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > REPLICATE, > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are > wondering > > > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through management > rest > > > api? > > > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through management > rest > > > api? > > > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we > strive > > to > > > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the type as > > > REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like "redundantCopy" and > > > "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region attributes? > > > > > > comments appreciated! > > > -- > > > Cheers > > > > > > Jinmei > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side to host logic associated with the region, but I think they always do that in conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of the server and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way cache.xml works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not sure. I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go backward to the separate attributes. -- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider wrote: > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the cluster. So > these regions would be created on servers. > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on the > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would still be > supported on clients. > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of attributes > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > LOCAL, > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > PARTITION, > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > REPLICATE, > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are wondering > > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through management rest > > api? > > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through management rest > > api? > > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we strive > to > > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the type as > > REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like "redundantCopy" and > > "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region attributes? > > > > comments appreciated! > > -- > > Cheers > > > > Jinmei > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api
Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the cluster. So these regions would be created on servers. So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on the server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would still be supported on clients. On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set of attributes > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > LOCAL, > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > PARTITION, > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > REPLICATE, > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > PARTITION_PROXY, > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we are wondering > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through management rest > api? > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through management rest > api? > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, should we strive to > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep the type as > REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like "redundantCopy" and > "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region attributes? > > comments appreciated! > -- > Cheers > > Jinmei >
