; >> > > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'm in progress of implementing this IEP for Ignite.NET,
> and I
> > > >> have
> > > >> > > > > conc
des provided by
> > >> client
> > >> > > > > configuration
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Should we, at least, make this behavior optional?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > &
behavior optional?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > One of the benefits of thin client is quick startup/connect time
> >> and
> >> > > low
> >> > > > > resource usage.
> >> > > > > Adding "conne
onnect time
>> and
>> > > low
>> > > > > resource usage.
>> > > > > Adding "connect all" behavior can negate those benefits,
>> especially
>> > on
>> > > > > large clusters.
>> > > > >
>&g
> > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:39 PM Igor Sapego
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Guys, I've updated the IEP page [1] once again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Plea
19 at 5:39 PM Igor Sapego
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Guys, I've updated the IEP page [1] once again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please, pay attention to sections Cache affinity mapping acquiring
> > > > > (4.a, format of Cache Partition
ache affinity mapping acquiring
> > > > (4.a, format of Cache Partitions Request) and Changes to cache
> > > > operations with single key (3 and 4, algorithm).
> > > >
> > > > Long story short, I've decided to add some additional data to Cache
> > > &
hanges to cache
> > > operations with single key (3 and 4, algorithm).
> > >
> > > Long story short, I've decided to add some additional data to Cache
> > > Partitions Response, so that client can determine how to calculate
> > > partition for a
; >
> > Long story short, I've decided to add some additional data to Cache
> > Partitions Response, so that client can determine how to calculate
> > partition for a given key properly.
> >
> > [1] -
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGN
> partition for a given key properly.
>
> [1] -
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:24 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> wrote:
>
> > Looks goo
Partitions Response, so that client can determine how to calculate
partition for a given key properly.
[1] -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
Best Regards,
Igor
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:24 PM Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> Looks g
Looks good to me.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:30 PM Igor Sapego wrote:
> I've updated IEP page: [1]
>
> What do you think now? To me it looks cleaner.
>
> [1] -
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
>
I've updated IEP page: [1]
What do you think now? To me it looks cleaner.
[1] -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
Best Regards,
Igor
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:44 PM Igor Sapego wrote:
> Ok, I understand now. I'll try updat
// Actual distribution
> > > > > List cacheIds; // Caches with similar distribution
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Makes sense?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:31 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
&
Caches with similar distribution
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Makes sense?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:31 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > &g
wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > This will require from client to send this new request
> > > > > periodically,
> > > > > >> > I'm
> >
ry.
> > >
> > > We can keep it simple and have partition map per cacheId. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:49 PM Igor Sapego wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guys, I've updated the proposal once again [1], so please,
> > > > take a look and let me kno
gt; > We can keep it simple and have partition map per cacheId. Thoughts?
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:49 PM Igor Sapego wrote:
> >
> > > Guys, I've updated the proposal once again [1], so please,
> > > take a look and let me know what you think.
&
e a look and let me know what you think.
> >
> > [1] -
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 17,
uys, I've updated the proposal once again [1], so please,
> take a look and let me know what you think.
>
> [1] -
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17
Guys, I've updated the proposal once again [1], so please,
take a look and let me know what you think.
[1] -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
Best Regards,
Igor
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 1:05 PM Igor Sapego wrote:
> Yeah, I
pology
> > > > > changed or late affinity assignment happened between server
> response
> > > and
> > > > > subsequent client partitions request.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:08 PM Igor Sapego
> >
I've updated IEP page [1] describing proposed solution in more
> details
> > > and
> > > > proposing some changes for a protocol.
> > > >
> > > > Please, take a look and let me know what you think.
> > > >
> > > > [1] -
&g
08 PM Igor Sapego wrote:
> >
> > > Hello guys,
> > >
> > > I've updated IEP page [1] describing proposed solution in more details
> > and
> > > proposing some changes for a protocol.
> > >
> > > Please, take a look and let me know what you think.
and
> > proposing some changes for a protocol.
> >
> > Please, take a look and let me know what you think.
> >
> > [1] -
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
> >
> > Best
know what you think.
>
> [1] -
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:54 AM Vladimir Ozerov
> wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> >
r a protocol.
>
> Please, take a look and let me know what you think.
>
> [1] -
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:54 AM Vladimir Ozerov
&g
Hello guys,
I've updated IEP page [1] describing proposed solution in more details and
proposing some changes for a protocol.
Please, take a look and let me know what you think.
[1] -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
Best
Denis,
Yes, in principle we can extend it. We are going to implement it in
subsequent phases of this IEP.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Denis Magda wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Feel that this functionality can be extended to the
I've created an IEP: [1]
[1] -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients
Best Regards,
Igor
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:17 PM Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> Ok, I see, this is what I was trying to understand, and this is an
> important
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Igor,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How can we invoke the affinity function on the client, if we
> don't
> > > have
> > > > > the
> > > > > > implementatio
> > > > How can we invoke the affinity function on the client, if we don't
> > have
> > > > the
> > > > > implementation at hand?
> > > > > Am I missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > &g
> > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Igor Sapego
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently, I'm working on the thin C++ client implementation.
> > > > > As you may already know, there is
; >
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Igor Sapego
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > Currently, I'm working on the thin C++ client implementation.
> > > > As you may already know, there is an issue with lat
h latency in our
> > > thin clients, which also can result in performance issues (you
> > > can see the "About Ignite Thin client performance" thread on
> > > user list).
> > >
> > > So, how about we implement some kind of "Best Effort Affinity"
here is an issue with latency in our
> > thin clients, which also can result in performance issues (you
> > can see the "About Ignite Thin client performance" thread on
> > user list).
> >
> > So, how about we implement some kind of "Best Effort Affinity&quo
> As you may already know, there is an issue with latency in our
> thin clients, which also can result in performance issues (you
> can see the "About Ignite Thin client performance" thread on
> user list).
>
> So, how about we implement some kind of "Best Effort Affin
w about we implement some kind of "Best Effort Affinity"
for our thin clients? In my opinion, this could be possible and
may improve mean latency when using thin clients dramatically.
The scenario is following:
1. Thin client connects to one of the node from the provided
address list, just
38 matches
Mail list logo
