Anatoly, I see. So the rest of the options I have in my mind are the following.
1) Queues & semaphores per object. This solution doesn't look scalable cause the more objects you have the more resources (queues & semaphores) you're allocating. If you still want to go for queues I would have one per table/cache and not per object. Instead of semaphores I would use plain Ignite distributed locks [1] per table/cache. In this case you will have per table/cache synchronization and this can affect performance but probably the difference won't be so much or even better in your use case, you just need to measure. 2) As another one approach you can do all the modifications through Ignite cluster transactionally [2] thus guaranteeing that there won't be concurrent updates of an object. Ignites caches, that will be updated, will work with your own implementation of a custom persistent storage [3] that will send updates to both DBs and a transaction that is started at Ignite's cache layer will be committed only if DBs are updated as well. Hope this helps to come to a satisfactory solution on your side. [1] https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.5.0.final/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/IgniteCache.html#lock(K) [2] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/transactions [3] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/persistent-store Regards, Denis On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:30 AM, akaptsan <akapt...@mail.ru> wrote: > Denis > > > > Thank you so much for helping me! > > But none of your suggestions really work for me L. > > > > I can’t now switch my application to Ignate as primary storage. But I do > have this idea in remote plans. > > > > I can’t use native RDBMS replication, because databases are not 100% > identical (in fact probably less then 50% of DB objects are identical). > > I do need application-level capturing and applying of changes. > > > > And main reason why I can’t use Kafka or similar messaging system is: I > need to eliminate simultaneous change of one object in the two DBs. If it > happened, then the object state in DBs would be inconsistent. > > That’s why I want to use Ignite semaphore > > > > > > > > *From:* Denis Magda [via Apache Ignite Users] [mailto:[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=2454&i=0>] > *Sent:* Saturday, January 09, 2016 9:26 AM > *To:* akaptsan > *Subject:* Re: Is there limitation on Semaphores and Queues? > > > > Anatoly, > > Please properly subscribe to the user list (this way we will not have to > manually approve your emails and you will get answers on your questions > quicker). All you need to do is send an email to “ > [hidden email] <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=2454&i=1>” and > follow simple instructions in the > reply > > Since the content in the databases is almost identical and you have a load > balancer that directs queries to one of the systems I would review current > architecture design and probably switch to the following one. You can still > have a single Ignite in-memory cluster that will persist data [1] in one or > several databases depending on your requirements and configuration. In such > a design all business model related queries will go directly to the cluster > and you don't need to care about replication cause everything will be > already there. Ignite supports ANSI-99 SQL so your SQL queries should work > fine as well[2]. > > If your systems are web applications then you may want to use web session > clustering in addition [3]. > > On the other hand, if you can't switch to such an architecture then basing > on your description you are trying to implement a replication between the > databases and probably solutions like Kafka Connect [4] should work > perfectly fine for you. Also different RDBMS vendors provide native tools > for replication between their databases. As an example replication between > Oracle databases can be done using Oracle Golden Gate product. I don't get > why you need to lock an Ignite object when you're applying changes, stored > in queues, from one database to another that's why consider that Kafka or > RDBMS native replication tool will be enough. > > Does any of suggestions work for you? > > [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/persistent-store > [2] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/sql-queries > [3] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/web-session-clustering > [4] http://kafka.apache.org/documentation.html > ------------------------------ > > *If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below:* > > > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Is-there-limitation-on-Semaphores-and-Queues-tp2415p2453.html > > To unsubscribe from Is there limitation on Semaphores and Queues?, click > here. > NAML > <http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml> > > ------------------------------ > View this message in context: RE: Is there limitation on Semaphores and > Queues? > <http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Is-there-limitation-on-Semaphores-and-Queues-tp2415p2454.html> > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive > <http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/> at Nabble.com. >
