You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ignite.apache.org by Alexei Scherbakov <al...@gmail.com> on 2022/01/06 11:13:24 UTC
Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Gurmehar,
"I need to understand when we mean LOCK, is this lock is acquired on entire
Cache or on record we are trying to update .
Please clarify ." - Ignite uses record level locking.
Jay,
I would avoid entire cache locks due to performance reasons, but if it's
really necessary, lock object cache seems the best solution.
вт, 28 дек. 2021 г. в 13:39, <ja...@gmx.de>:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
>
> thanks for your feedback.
>
>
>
> We originally discarded that option since it was our understanding that
> this would not work as desired in a transactional context.
>
>
>
> Maybe we were wrong. Will look into it again. Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* don.tequila@gmx.de <do...@gmx.de>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 28 December 2021 10:59
> *To:* user@ignite.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
>
>
>
> Instead of creating a cache with lock objects wouldn’t it be easier to use
> a semaphore for each cache where you want to achieve strong reader-Writer
> consistency?
>
>
>
> https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/data-structures/semaphore
>
>
>
> Then every time before reading/writing you acquire the semaphore first.
>
>
>
> I guess this semaphore does essentially what you’re doing manually.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Thomas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28.12.21 at 10:41, jay.ethan@gmx.de wrote:
>
> And if anyone knows a different way to achieve entire-cache-locks in
> Optimistic Serializable transactions: We always appreciate the help.
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gurmehar Kalra <gu...@hcl.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, 27 December 2021 07:31
> *To:* user@ignite.apache.org; alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com
> *Subject:* RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I need to understand when we mean LOCK, is this lock is acquired on entire
> Cache or on record we are trying to update .
> Please clarify .
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gurmehar Singh
>
>
>
> *From:* Alexei Scherbakov <al...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 16 December 2021 22:40
> *To:* user <us...@ignite.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
>
>
>
> [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust
> the sender, Don’t click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing
> email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]
>
> Hi.
>
>
>
> You can try OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABLE isolation, it might have better
> throughput in contending scenarios.
>
> But this is not the same as RW lock, because a tx can be invalidated after
> a commit if a lock conflict is detected.
>
> No RW lock of any kind is planned, AFAIK.
>
>
>
> вт, 7 дек. 2021 г. в 23:22, <ja...@gmx.de>:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> we’re running in circles with Ignite for so long now. Can anyone please
> help? All our attempts to custom-build a Reader Writer Lock (/Re-entrant
> Lock) for use inside transactions have failed.
>
>
>
> Background:
>
> - Multi-node setup
>
> - Very high throughput mixed read/write cache access
>
> - Key-Value API using transactional caches
>
> - Strong consistency absolute requirement
>
> - Transactional context required for guarantees and fault-tolerance
>
>
>
> Using Pessimistic Repeatable-Read transactions gives strong consistency
> but kills performance if there’s a large number of operations on the same
> cache entry (and they tend to introduce performance penalties in
> entire-cache operations and difficulties in cross-cache locking as well).
> All other transactional modes somehow violate the strong consistency
> requirement as we see it and were able to test so far.
>
>
>
> In other distributed environments we use reader writer locks to gain both
> strong consistency and high performance with mixed workloads. In Ignite
> however we’re not aware that explicit locks can be used inside
> transactions: The documentation clearly states so (
> https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/distributed-locks
> <https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fignite.apache.org%2Fdocs%2Flatest%2Fdistributed-locks&data=04%7C01%7Cgurmehar.kalra%40hcl.com%7Cbb66d82317d148b6221608d9c0b6ee08%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C637752714176933321%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=1eNvAIsE5mgD6H0CSO6IX%2BSIw2nprWcQ1KX%2B5iZfwcc%3D&reserved=0>)
> and trying to custom-build a reader writer lock for use inside transactions
> we always end up concluding that this may not be achievable if there are
> multiple ways to implicitly acquire but none to release locks.
>
>
>
> Are we out of luck here or
>
> - did we miss something?
>
> - are there workarounds you know of?
>
> - are there plans to implement transactional re-entrant locks in future
> releases?
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alexei Scherbakov
>
> ::DISCLAIMER::
> ------------------------------
>
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and
> intended for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain
> viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or without
> referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on the originator
> or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this
> email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the
> views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction,
> dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or
> publication of this message without the prior written consent of authorized
> representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before
> opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses and
> other defects.
> ------------------------------
>
--
Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov
RE: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Posted by ja...@gmx.de.
Ok that’s what I was afraid of. Thanks for letting us know Pavel.
And if https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887 made it back to the top of the list that would be awesome of course. You got my vote.
Jay
From: Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, 10 January 2022 07:32
To: user <us...@ignite.apache.org>
Subject: Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Jay,
> Is using async/await supported for optimistic serializable transactions (and we’re doing something wrong)
> or are transactional operations currently supposed to be blocking in .NET?
Short answer - yes, please use synchronous cache APIs when working with transactions.
A transaction is owned by a specific thread. Transactional API calls should be done from this thread, and `Commit` should be called from this thread.
When doing `await`, we most likely end up on another thread and lose transaction context.
There were plans to make transactions work across multiple threads, but the ticket looks abandoned:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 2:23 PM <jay.ethan@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> > wrote:
Ok, we completed the testing:
Lock object cache with Optimistic Serializable transactions seems to be the way to go (thanks again Alexei).
We actually now prefer this approach over “classical” reader writer locks for two main reasons:
1) The first reason is quite obvious: When you’re using classical reader writer locks you’re in pessimistic world. And lock ordering sounds fairly easy – but can actually get quite complicated if your data model ever grows to be really complex.
In contrast:
Optimistic Serializable means you don’t need to worry about that but enables you to concentrate on your business logic. That’s great. Makes life simpler.
2) The second reason might not be as obvious at first but anyone who has allowed their users to directly trigger commands that again trigger exclusive locking in your datastore might have experienced that this way you can be taken out very, very quickly. So of course you figure that you need to do sanity-checks first but doing this non-blocking is not easy when you have strong consistency requirements (both replicating data or taking reader locks for checking first violates the consistency requirement). Then you’re excited to find the option of “upgradeable reader locks” but soon after that it turns out that in practical applications there can only be a single upgradable lock. So this doesn’t help you a lot. Then you’re back to square one since you are basically forced to acquire a write-lock before you can do the consistent sanity check which makes it just too easy to flood your servers.
In contrast:
Optimistic Serializable enables you to do fully consistent sanity checks of user traffic on a massive scale – without ever taking a single lock! Gives your servers much more room to breathe until the AI kicks in. This is a security-related feature we are starting to absolutely love!
Thanks again for all the input we received on this!
One minor issue around the approach remains:
When testing with a .NET embedded thick client (2.11.1) we only got the behaviour we needed when strictly sticking to blocking cache method calls. As soon as we introduced async/await hell broke loose and we got tons of different errors and wired behaviour. Outside transactions async/await appears to work nicely. So the question is:
* Is using async/await supported for optimistic serializable transactions (and we’re doing something wrong) or are transactional operations currently supposed to be blocking in .NET?
Thanks for any pointers.
Jay
From: Alexei Scherbakov <alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 6 January 2022 12:13
To: user <user@ignite.apache.org <ma...@ignite.apache.org> >
Subject: Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Gurmehar,
"I need to understand when we mean LOCK, is this lock is acquired on entire Cache or on record we are trying to update .
Please clarify ." - Ignite uses record level locking.
Jay,
I would avoid entire cache locks due to performance reasons, but if it's really necessary, lock object cache seems the best solution.
вт, 28 дек. 2021 г. в 13:39, <jay.ethan@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> >:
Hi Thomas,
thanks for your feedback.
We originally discarded that option since it was our understanding that this would not work as desired in a transactional context.
Maybe we were wrong. Will look into it again. Thanks!
Jay
From: don.tequila@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> <don.tequila@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> >
Sent: Tuesday, 28 December 2021 10:59
To: user@ignite.apache.org <ma...@ignite.apache.org>
Subject: Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Instead of creating a cache with lock objects wouldn’t it be easier to use a semaphore for each cache where you want to achieve strong reader-Writer consistency?
https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/data-structures/semaphore
Then every time before reading/writing you acquire the semaphore first.
I guess this semaphore does essentially what you’re doing manually.
Regards
Thomas.
On 28.12.21 at 10:41, jay.ethan@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
And if anyone knows a different way to achieve entire-cache-locks in Optimistic Serializable transactions: We always appreciate the help.
Jay
From: Gurmehar Kalra <gurmehar.kalra@hcl.com <ma...@hcl.com> >
Sent: Monday, 27 December 2021 07:31
To: user@ignite.apache.org <ma...@ignite.apache.org> ; alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Hi,
I need to understand when we mean LOCK, is this lock is acquired on entire Cache or on record we are trying to update .
Please clarify .
Regards,
Gurmehar Singh
From: Alexei Scherbakov <alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> >
Sent: 16 December 2021 22:40
To: user <user@ignite.apache.org <ma...@ignite.apache.org> >
Subject: Re: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
[CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust the sender, Don’t click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]
Hi.
You can try OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABLE isolation, it might have better throughput in contending scenarios.
But this is not the same as RW lock, because a tx can be invalidated after a commit if a lock conflict is detected.
No RW lock of any kind is planned, AFAIK.
вт, 7 дек. 2021 г. в 23:22, <jay.ethan@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> >:
Dear all,
we’re running in circles with Ignite for so long now. Can anyone please help? All our attempts to custom-build a Reader Writer Lock (/Re-entrant Lock) for use inside transactions have failed.
Background:
- Multi-node setup
- Very high throughput mixed read/write cache access
- Key-Value API using transactional caches
- Strong consistency absolute requirement
- Transactional context required for guarantees and fault-tolerance
Using Pessimistic Repeatable-Read transactions gives strong consistency but kills performance if there’s a large number of operations on the same cache entry (and they tend to introduce performance penalties in entire-cache operations and difficulties in cross-cache locking as well). All other transactional modes somehow violate the strong consistency requirement as we see it and were able to test so far.
In other distributed environments we use reader writer locks to gain both strong consistency and high performance with mixed workloads. In Ignite however we’re not aware that explicit locks can be used inside transactions: The documentation clearly states so (https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/distributed-locks <https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fignite.apache.org%2Fdocs%2Flatest%2Fdistributed-locks&data=04%7C01%7Cgurmehar.kalra%40hcl.com%7Cbb66d82317d148b6221608d9c0b6ee08%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C637752714176933321%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=1eNvAIsE5mgD6H0CSO6IX%2BSIw2nprWcQ1KX%2B5iZfwcc%3D&reserved=0> ) and trying to custom-build a reader writer lock for use inside transactions we always end up concluding that this may not be achievable if there are multiple ways to implicitly acquire but none to release locks.
Are we out of luck here or
- did we miss something?
- are there workarounds you know of?
- are there plans to implement transactional re-entrant locks in future releases?
Jay
--
Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov
::DISCLAIMER::
_____
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses and other defects.
_____
--
Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov
Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Posted by Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>.
Jay,
> Is using async/await supported for optimistic serializable transactions
(and we’re doing something wrong)
> or are transactional operations currently supposed to be blocking in .NET?
Short answer - yes, please use synchronous cache APIs when working with
transactions.
A transaction is owned by a specific thread. Transactional API calls should
be done from this thread, and `Commit` should be called from this thread.
When doing `await`, we most likely end up on another thread and lose
transaction context.
There were plans to make transactions work across multiple threads, but the
ticket looks abandoned:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 2:23 PM <ja...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Ok, we completed the testing:
>
>
>
> Lock object cache with Optimistic Serializable transactions seems to be
> the way to go (thanks again Alexei).
>
>
>
> We actually now prefer this approach over “classical” reader writer locks
> for two main reasons:
>
>
>
> 1) The first reason is quite obvious: When you’re using classical reader
> writer locks you’re in pessimistic world. And lock ordering sounds fairly
> easy – but can actually get quite complicated if your data model ever grows
> to be really complex.
>
> In contrast:
>
> Optimistic Serializable means you don’t need to worry about that but
> enables you to concentrate on your business logic. That’s great. Makes life
> simpler.
>
>
>
> 2) The second reason might not be as obvious at first but anyone who has
> allowed their users to directly trigger commands that again trigger
> exclusive locking in your datastore might have experienced that this way
> you can be taken out very, very quickly. So of course you figure that you
> need to do sanity-checks first but doing this non-blocking is not easy when
> you have strong consistency requirements (both replicating data or taking
> reader locks for checking first violates the consistency requirement). Then
> you’re excited to find the option of “upgradeable reader locks” but soon
> after that it turns out that in practical applications there can only be a
> single upgradable lock. So this doesn’t help you a lot. Then you’re back to
> square one since you are basically forced to acquire a write-lock before
> you can do the consistent sanity check which makes it just too easy to
> flood your servers.
>
> In contrast:
>
> Optimistic Serializable enables you to do fully consistent sanity checks
> of user traffic on a massive scale – without ever taking a single lock!
> Gives your servers much more room to breathe until the AI kicks in. This is
> a security-related feature we are starting to absolutely love!
>
>
>
> Thanks again for all the input we received on this!
>
>
>
> One minor issue around the approach remains:
>
> When testing with a .NET embedded thick client (2.11.1) we only got the
> behaviour we needed when strictly sticking to blocking cache method calls.
> As soon as we introduced async/await hell broke loose and we got tons of
> different errors and wired behaviour. Outside transactions async/await
> appears to work nicely. So the question is:
>
>
>
> - Is using async/await supported for optimistic serializable
> transactions (and we’re doing something wrong) or are transactional
> operations currently supposed to be blocking in .NET?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any pointers.
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alexei Scherbakov <al...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 6 January 2022 12:13
> *To:* user <us...@ignite.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
>
>
>
> Gurmehar,
>
> "I need to understand when we mean LOCK, is this lock is acquired on
> entire Cache or on record we are trying to update .
>
> Please clarify ." - Ignite uses record level locking.
>
>
>
> Jay,
>
> I would avoid entire cache locks due to performance reasons, but if it's
> really necessary, lock object cache seems the best solution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> вт, 28 дек. 2021 г. в 13:39, <ja...@gmx.de>:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
>
> thanks for your feedback.
>
>
>
> We originally discarded that option since it was our understanding that
> this would not work as desired in a transactional context.
>
>
>
> Maybe we were wrong. Will look into it again. Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* don.tequila@gmx.de <do...@gmx.de>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 28 December 2021 10:59
> *To:* user@ignite.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
>
>
>
> Instead of creating a cache with lock objects wouldn’t it be easier to use
> a semaphore for each cache where you want to achieve strong reader-Writer
> consistency?
>
>
>
> https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/data-structures/semaphore
>
>
>
> Then every time before reading/writing you acquire the semaphore first.
>
>
>
> I guess this semaphore does essentially what you’re doing manually.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Thomas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28.12.21 at 10:41, jay.ethan@gmx.de wrote:
>
> And if anyone knows a different way to achieve entire-cache-locks in
> Optimistic Serializable transactions: We always appreciate the help.
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gurmehar Kalra <gu...@hcl.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, 27 December 2021 07:31
> *To:* user@ignite.apache.org; alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com
> *Subject:* RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I need to understand when we mean LOCK, is this lock is acquired on entire
> Cache or on record we are trying to update .
> Please clarify .
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gurmehar Singh
>
>
>
> *From:* Alexei Scherbakov <al...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 16 December 2021 22:40
> *To:* user <us...@ignite.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
>
>
>
> [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust
> the sender, Don’t click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing
> email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]
>
> Hi.
>
>
>
> You can try OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABLE isolation, it might have better
> throughput in contending scenarios.
>
> But this is not the same as RW lock, because a tx can be invalidated after
> a commit if a lock conflict is detected.
>
> No RW lock of any kind is planned, AFAIK.
>
>
>
> вт, 7 дек. 2021 г. в 23:22, <ja...@gmx.de>:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> we’re running in circles with Ignite for so long now. Can anyone please
> help? All our attempts to custom-build a Reader Writer Lock (/Re-entrant
> Lock) for use inside transactions have failed.
>
>
>
> Background:
>
> - Multi-node setup
>
> - Very high throughput mixed read/write cache access
>
> - Key-Value API using transactional caches
>
> - Strong consistency absolute requirement
>
> - Transactional context required for guarantees and fault-tolerance
>
>
>
> Using Pessimistic Repeatable-Read transactions gives strong consistency
> but kills performance if there’s a large number of operations on the same
> cache entry (and they tend to introduce performance penalties in
> entire-cache operations and difficulties in cross-cache locking as well).
> All other transactional modes somehow violate the strong consistency
> requirement as we see it and were able to test so far.
>
>
>
> In other distributed environments we use reader writer locks to gain both
> strong consistency and high performance with mixed workloads. In Ignite
> however we’re not aware that explicit locks can be used inside
> transactions: The documentation clearly states so (
> https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/distributed-locks
> <https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fignite.apache.org%2Fdocs%2Flatest%2Fdistributed-locks&data=04%7C01%7Cgurmehar.kalra%40hcl.com%7Cbb66d82317d148b6221608d9c0b6ee08%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C637752714176933321%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=1eNvAIsE5mgD6H0CSO6IX%2BSIw2nprWcQ1KX%2B5iZfwcc%3D&reserved=0>)
> and trying to custom-build a reader writer lock for use inside transactions
> we always end up concluding that this may not be achievable if there are
> multiple ways to implicitly acquire but none to release locks.
>
>
>
> Are we out of luck here or
>
> - did we miss something?
>
> - are there workarounds you know of?
>
> - are there plans to implement transactional re-entrant locks in future
> releases?
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alexei Scherbakov
>
> ::DISCLAIMER::
> ------------------------------
>
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and
> intended for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain
> viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or without
> referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on the originator
> or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this
> email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the
> views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction,
> dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or
> publication of this message without the prior written consent of authorized
> representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before
> opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses and
> other defects.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alexei Scherbakov
>
RE: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Posted by ja...@gmx.de.
Ok, we completed the testing:
Lock object cache with Optimistic Serializable transactions seems to be the way to go (thanks again Alexei).
We actually now prefer this approach over “classical” reader writer locks for two main reasons:
1) The first reason is quite obvious: When you’re using classical reader writer locks you’re in pessimistic world. And lock ordering sounds fairly easy – but can actually get quite complicated if your data model ever grows to be really complex.
In contrast:
Optimistic Serializable means you don’t need to worry about that but enables you to concentrate on your business logic. That’s great. Makes life simpler.
2) The second reason might not be as obvious at first but anyone who has allowed their users to directly trigger commands that again trigger exclusive locking in your datastore might have experienced that this way you can be taken out very, very quickly. So of course you figure that you need to do sanity-checks first but doing this non-blocking is not easy when you have strong consistency requirements (both replicating data or taking reader locks for checking first violates the consistency requirement). Then you’re excited to find the option of “upgradeable reader locks” but soon after that it turns out that in practical applications there can only be a single upgradable lock. So this doesn’t help you a lot. Then you’re back to square one since you are basically forced to acquire a write-lock before you can do the consistent sanity check which makes it just too easy to flood your servers.
In contrast:
Optimistic Serializable enables you to do fully consistent sanity checks of user traffic on a massive scale – without ever taking a single lock! Gives your servers much more room to breathe until the AI kicks in. This is a security-related feature we are starting to absolutely love!
Thanks again for all the input we received on this!
One minor issue around the approach remains:
When testing with a .NET embedded thick client (2.11.1) we only got the behaviour we needed when strictly sticking to blocking cache method calls. As soon as we introduced async/await hell broke loose and we got tons of different errors and wired behaviour. Outside transactions async/await appears to work nicely. So the question is:
* Is using async/await supported for optimistic serializable transactions (and we’re doing something wrong) or are transactional operations currently supposed to be blocking in .NET?
Thanks for any pointers.
Jay
From: Alexei Scherbakov <al...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 6 January 2022 12:13
To: user <us...@ignite.apache.org>
Subject: Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Gurmehar,
"I need to understand when we mean LOCK, is this lock is acquired on entire Cache or on record we are trying to update .
Please clarify ." - Ignite uses record level locking.
Jay,
I would avoid entire cache locks due to performance reasons, but if it's really necessary, lock object cache seems the best solution.
вт, 28 дек. 2021 г. в 13:39, <jay.ethan@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> >:
Hi Thomas,
thanks for your feedback.
We originally discarded that option since it was our understanding that this would not work as desired in a transactional context.
Maybe we were wrong. Will look into it again. Thanks!
Jay
From: don.tequila@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> <don.tequila@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> >
Sent: Tuesday, 28 December 2021 10:59
To: user@ignite.apache.org <ma...@ignite.apache.org>
Subject: Re: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Instead of creating a cache with lock objects wouldn’t it be easier to use a semaphore for each cache where you want to achieve strong reader-Writer consistency?
https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/data-structures/semaphore
Then every time before reading/writing you acquire the semaphore first.
I guess this semaphore does essentially what you’re doing manually.
Regards
Thomas.
On 28.12.21 at 10:41, jay.ethan@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
And if anyone knows a different way to achieve entire-cache-locks in Optimistic Serializable transactions: We always appreciate the help.
Jay
From: Gurmehar Kalra <gurmehar.kalra@hcl.com <ma...@hcl.com> >
Sent: Monday, 27 December 2021 07:31
To: user@ignite.apache.org <ma...@ignite.apache.org> ; alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
Hi,
I need to understand when we mean LOCK, is this lock is acquired on entire Cache or on record we are trying to update .
Please clarify .
Regards,
Gurmehar Singh
From: Alexei Scherbakov <alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> >
Sent: 16 December 2021 22:40
To: user <user@ignite.apache.org <ma...@ignite.apache.org> >
Subject: Re: Transactional Reader Writer Locks
[CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust the sender, Don’t click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]
Hi.
You can try OPTIMISTIC SERIALIZABLE isolation, it might have better throughput in contending scenarios.
But this is not the same as RW lock, because a tx can be invalidated after a commit if a lock conflict is detected.
No RW lock of any kind is planned, AFAIK.
вт, 7 дек. 2021 г. в 23:22, <jay.ethan@gmx.de <ma...@gmx.de> >:
Dear all,
we’re running in circles with Ignite for so long now. Can anyone please help? All our attempts to custom-build a Reader Writer Lock (/Re-entrant Lock) for use inside transactions have failed.
Background:
- Multi-node setup
- Very high throughput mixed read/write cache access
- Key-Value API using transactional caches
- Strong consistency absolute requirement
- Transactional context required for guarantees and fault-tolerance
Using Pessimistic Repeatable-Read transactions gives strong consistency but kills performance if there’s a large number of operations on the same cache entry (and they tend to introduce performance penalties in entire-cache operations and difficulties in cross-cache locking as well). All other transactional modes somehow violate the strong consistency requirement as we see it and were able to test so far.
In other distributed environments we use reader writer locks to gain both strong consistency and high performance with mixed workloads. In Ignite however we’re not aware that explicit locks can be used inside transactions: The documentation clearly states so (https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/distributed-locks <https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fignite.apache.org%2Fdocs%2Flatest%2Fdistributed-locks&data=04%7C01%7Cgurmehar.kalra%40hcl.com%7Cbb66d82317d148b6221608d9c0b6ee08%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C637752714176933321%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=1eNvAIsE5mgD6H0CSO6IX%2BSIw2nprWcQ1KX%2B5iZfwcc%3D&reserved=0> ) and trying to custom-build a reader writer lock for use inside transactions we always end up concluding that this may not be achievable if there are multiple ways to implicitly acquire but none to release locks.
Are we out of luck here or
- did we miss something?
- are there workarounds you know of?
- are there plans to implement transactional re-entrant locks in future releases?
Jay
--
Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov
::DISCLAIMER::
_____
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses and other defects.
_____
--
Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov