[infinispan-dev] ISPN-3051 configuration

[Dan Berindei]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant at redhat.com>wrote:

> On 09/09/2013 11:18 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
> > Hi guys
> >
> > As you know, I'm working on ISPN-3051, allowing each node to take a
> > higher or lower proportion of the entries in the cache. I've
> > implemented this by adding a float "loadFactor" setting in each node's
> > configuration, with 1 being the default and any positive value being
> > accepted (including 0).
> >
> > There are two questions I wanted to ask you about the configuration:
> >
> > 1. What do you think about the "loadFactor" name? I started having
> > doubts about it, since it has a very different meaning in HashMap. I
> > have come up with a couple alternatives, but I don't love any of them:
> > "proportionalLoad" and "proportionalCapacity".
> Since this is "per-node", you want to use the "node" word in there, so
> "nodeCapacity" would be good. Can this value change at runtime ?
>

nodeCapacity by itself would sound like we're limiting the actual number of
keys held on this node, so I feel it would be misleading. You do have a
point about having "node" in the name though... how about "nodeScale"?

The value can't change at runtime. TBH, I haven't even considered it.



> > 2. Where should we put this setting? I have added it as
> > CacheConfiguration.clustering().hash().loadFactor(), but I can't think
> > of a reason for having different values for each cache, so we might as
> > well put it in the global configuration.
> Yes, global sounds good. And don't forget server :)
>
>
I guess the others disagree, so I'll keep it at the cache level.

I'll try to remember about server ;)

Cheers
Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20130909/198340b2/attachment.html