Gianfranco,
Need to remove background partition exchange
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-708> is a very important
ticked and it's not blocked by any other tickets at this moment.
I will be nice to include this improvement to next release.
Let me know in case you heed h
GitHub user murador opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/129
IGNITE-708: Remove refreshPartitions on ResendTimeoutObject.
IGNITE-708: From what I could see, the refresh partition in case of
timeout is redundant, since each node has a refresh partition which
Github user murador closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/86
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enab
GitHub user murador opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/86
IGNITE-708 remove refreshPartitions on ResendTimeoutObject
The ticket is IGNITE-708 - remove refreshPartitions on ResendTimeoutObject.
From what I could see, the refresh partition in case of
Thank you , all.
2015-09-01 12:21 GMT+02:00 Yakov Zhdanov :
> In my view, Alex has 100% understanding on what is hapenning. Let's remove
> background exchange if partition map does not change. Gianfranco, I don't
> think you should account for transactions. Only updates to partition
> topology
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> In my view, Alex has 100% understanding on what is hapenning. Let's remove
> background exchange if partition map does not change. Gianfranco, I don't
> think you should account for transactions. Only updates to partition
> topology matters.
In my view, Alex has 100% understanding on what is hapenning. Let's remove
background exchange if partition map does not change. Gianfranco, I don't
think you should account for transactions. Only updates to partition
topology matters. Younger nodes should send local updates to the oldest.
The old
Hello Alexey,
I mean 'local partition map'. I am trying to investigate the issue, and in
fact,
I need some clarification about the ticket. From my understanding, It is
necessary to refresh the partitions (refreshPartitions())
only if the local partition is changed, or if a transaction has been made
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I understood Yakov's point, even this message indicating that no
> change happened is redundant because we have message delivery guarantees on
> communication level and no messages can be lost. If a
As far as I understood Yakov's point, even this message indicating that no
change happened is redundant because we have message delivery guarantees on
communication level and no messages can be lost. If a node is waiting for a
message and receives a message indicating that no change had happened, I
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gianfranco,
>
> What do you mean by 'local cache' here?
>
> If you are talking about the local partition map, I do not think we have
> such a method. The background exchange that is described in the ticket is
Gianfranco,
What do you mean by 'local cache' here?
If you are talking about the local partition map, I do not think we have
such a method. The background exchange that is described in the ticket is
handled in controlled by the ResendTimeoutObject inner class in
GridCachePartitionExchangeManager.
Hi Igniters,
I 'm starting to implement this patch:
Can you tell me if there is already a convenient method to see if the local
cache was updated last time interval ?
Regards, Gianfranco
--
Gianfranco Murador
Igniter and Software Engineer.
13 matches
Mail list logo
