[infinispan-dev] IRC chat: HB + I9
rvansa at redhat.com
Wed May 17 03:28:02 EDT 2017
On 05/16/2017 05:06 PM, Paul Ferraro wrote:
> Thanks Galder. I read through the infinispan-dev thread on the
> subject, but I'm not sure what was concluded regarding the eventual
> home for this code.
> Once the testsuite passes, is the plan to commit to hibernate master?
> If so, I will likely fork these changes into a WF module (and adapt it
> for Hibernate 5.1.x) so that WF12 can move to JGroups4+Infinispan9
> until Hibernate6 is integrated.
> Radim - one thing you mentioned on that infinispan-dev thread puzzled
> me: you said that invalidation mode offers no benefits over
> replication. How is that possible? Can you elaborate?
I have worded that a bit incorrectly - it offers no benefits in terms of
number of RPCs you have to execute. Yes, keeping the replication
semantics, replication should hold the cached data on all nodes instead
of only single node.
The thing is that 2LC currently tweaks the actual mode so extensively
that the maintenance burden is too much on 2LC itself. I perceive the
difference between cache modes in the algorithm how operations are
routed through the cluster, not only how these entries are stored
(though that's just the other face of the coin). And while I've mostly
kept the 'storage' part, the routing has changed very much in order to
support transparent repeatable-read isolation which I expect from a DB.
(Note: while Infinispan claims to support RR, the meaning is different
than traditional DBs' RR - actually it's a hybrid between RR and
snapshot isolation )
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I'm on the move, not sure if Paul/Radim saw my replies:
>> <pferraro> galderz, rvansa: Hey guys - is there a plan for Hibernate &
>> ISPN 9?
>> <rvansa> pferraro: Galder has been working on that
>> <rvansa> pferraro: though I haven't seen any results but a list of
>> stuff that needs to be changed
>> <pferraro> galderz: which Hibernate branch are you targeting?
>> <rvansa> pferraro: 5.2, but there are minute differences between 5.x
>> in terms of the parts that need love to get Infinispan 9 support
>> *** Mode change: +v vblagoje on #infinispan by ChanServ
>> (ChanServ at services.)
>> <pferraro> rvansa: are you suggesting that 5.0 or 5.1 branches will be
>> adapted to additionally support infinispan 9? how is that
>>> pferraro: i'm working on it as we speak...
>>> pferraro: down to 16 failuresd
>>> pferraro: i started a couple of months ago, but had talks/demos to
>>> pferraro: i've got back to working on it this week
>>> pferraro: rvansa
>>> rvansa: minute differences my ass ;p
>>> pferraro: did you see my replies?
>>> i got disconnected while replying...
>> <pferraro> hmm - no - I didn't
>> <pferraro> galderz: ^
>>> pferraro: so, working on the HB + I9 integration as we speak
>>> pferraro: i started a couple of months back but had talks/demos to
>> prepare and had to put that aside
>>> pferraro: i'm down to 16 failures
>>> pferraro: serious refactoring required of the integration to get it
>> to compile and the tests to pass
>>> pferraro: need to switch to async interceptor stack in 2lc
>> integration and get all the subtle changes right
>>> pferraro: it's a painstaking job basically
>>> pferraro: i'm working on
>>> pferraro: i can't remember where i branched off, but it's a branch
>> that steve had since master was focused on 5.x
>>> pferraro: i've no idea when/where we'll integrate this, but one
>> thing is for sure: it's nowhere near backwards compatible
>>> actually, fixed one this morning, so down to 15 failures
>>> pferraro: any suggestions/wishes?
>>> is anyone out there? ;)
>> Galder Zamarreño
>> Infinispan, Red Hat
Radim Vansa <rvansa at redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
More information about the infinispan-dev