You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com> on 2017/06/18 23:03:15 UTC
IgniteCache#localEvict method
Folks,
Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to evict
from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
-Val
Re: IgniteCache#localEvict method
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Created ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5592
-Val
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Ivan Rakov <iv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree as well.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ivan Rakov
>
> On 22.06.2017 1:23, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
>
> I agree. Ivan, do you have objections?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Ivan,
>>
>> The semantic now is very confusing, because localEvict does not evict to
>> off-heap, it just removes it from on-heap. The off-heap cache always has
>> the entry anyway.
>>
>> My vote would be to remove this method as I don't see anyone every needing
>> it. Perhaps a more useful method would be to flush the whole on-heap cache
>> altogether.
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ivan Rakov <ir...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Semantics in 2.0: if onheap cache enabled, method evicts entry from it.
>> If
>> > onheap cache is disabled (default case), implementation is no-op.
>> > Probably we should keep the method and add some note in javadoc.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Ivan Rakov
>> >
>> > On 19.06.2017 17:01, Igor Sapego wrote:
>> >
>> >> What if user enables on-heap cache?
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards,
>> >> Igor
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't look useful to me.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Folks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to
>> >>>>
>> >>> evict
>> >>>
>> >>>> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Val
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: IgniteCache#localEvict method
Posted by Ivan Rakov <iv...@gmail.com>.
Agree as well.
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 22.06.2017 1:23, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
> I agree. Ivan, do you have objections?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <dsetrakyan@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Ivan,
>
> The semantic now is very confusing, because localEvict does not
> evict to
> off-heap, it just removes it from on-heap. The off-heap cache
> always has
> the entry anyway.
>
> My vote would be to remove this method as I don't see anyone every
> needing
> it. Perhaps a more useful method would be to flush the whole
> on-heap cache
> altogether.
>
> D.
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ivan Rakov <irakov@gridgain.com
> <ma...@gridgain.com>> wrote:
>
> > Semantics in 2.0: if onheap cache enabled, method evicts entry
> from it. If
> > onheap cache is disabled (default case), implementation is no-op.
> > Probably we should keep the method and add some note in javadoc.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Ivan Rakov
> >
> > On 19.06.2017 17:01, Igor Sapego wrote:
> >
> >> What if user enables on-heap cache?
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Igor
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <dsetrakyan@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Doesn't look useful to me.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be
> used to
> >>>>
> >>> evict
> >>>
> >>>> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the
> semantics now?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Val
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
>
Re: IgniteCache#localEvict method
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
I agree. Ivan, do you have objections?
-Val
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Ivan,
>
> The semantic now is very confusing, because localEvict does not evict to
> off-heap, it just removes it from on-heap. The off-heap cache always has
> the entry anyway.
>
> My vote would be to remove this method as I don't see anyone every needing
> it. Perhaps a more useful method would be to flush the whole on-heap cache
> altogether.
>
> D.
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ivan Rakov <ir...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> > Semantics in 2.0: if onheap cache enabled, method evicts entry from it.
> If
> > onheap cache is disabled (default case), implementation is no-op.
> > Probably we should keep the method and add some note in javadoc.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Ivan Rakov
> >
> > On 19.06.2017 17:01, Igor Sapego wrote:
> >
> >> What if user enables on-heap cache?
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Igor
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Doesn't look useful to me.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to
> >>>>
> >>> evict
> >>>
> >>>> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Val
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
Re: IgniteCache#localEvict method
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Ivan,
The semantic now is very confusing, because localEvict does not evict to
off-heap, it just removes it from on-heap. The off-heap cache always has
the entry anyway.
My vote would be to remove this method as I don't see anyone every needing
it. Perhaps a more useful method would be to flush the whole on-heap cache
altogether.
D.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ivan Rakov <ir...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Semantics in 2.0: if onheap cache enabled, method evicts entry from it. If
> onheap cache is disabled (default case), implementation is no-op.
> Probably we should keep the method and add some note in javadoc.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ivan Rakov
>
> On 19.06.2017 17:01, Igor Sapego wrote:
>
>> What if user enables on-heap cache?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Igor
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't look useful to me.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to
>>>>
>>> evict
>>>
>>>> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
>>>>
>>>> -Val
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: IgniteCache#localEvict method
Posted by Ivan Rakov <ir...@gridgain.com>.
Semantics in 2.0: if onheap cache enabled, method evicts entry from it.
If onheap cache is disabled (default case), implementation is no-op.
Probably we should keep the method and add some note in javadoc.
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 19.06.2017 17:01, Igor Sapego wrote:
> What if user enables on-heap cache?
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't look useful to me.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to
>> evict
>>> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
>>>
>>> -Val
>>>
Re: IgniteCache#localEvict method
Posted by Ivan Rakov <iv...@gmail.com>.
Semantics in 2.0: if onheap cache is enabled, method evicts entry from
it. If onheap cache is disabled (default case), implementation is no-op.
Probably we should keep the method and add some note in javadoc.
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 19.06.2017 17:01, Igor Sapego wrote:
> What if user enables on-heap cache?
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't look useful to me.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to
>> evict
>>> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
>>>
>>> -Val
>>>
Re: IgniteCache#localEvict method
Posted by Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>.
What if user enables on-heap cache?
Best Regards,
Igor
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Doesn't look useful to me.
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to
> evict
> > from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
> >
> > -Val
> >
>
Re: IgniteCache#localEvict method
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Doesn't look useful to me.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does the subj make sense in 2.0? Before this method could be used to evict
> from on-heap memory to off-heap or swap. What are the semantics now?
>
> -Val
>