10:41 a.m.
Looks good :)
I have a few comments on top of Sanne's
o JGroupsBackendQueueProcessorFactory
Should the channel name have a default name? Could answer yes or no, I
am just wondering.
Empty cfg when you are done using it, or even better don't keep it
around and pass it as parameters
o JGroupsAbstractMessageReceiver
getState / setState. What's that?
why those unimplemented methods? Is that expected?
Generally speaking add comments where the code is not obvious
o Tests
I haven't tested nor ahve looked long at the tests
Why do you use plain SQL in one test to creste the object? wouldn't
Hibernate work?
in SearchTestCase protected static File indexDir; => better to expose
a protected getter I guess
o Configuration for JGroups
I'm surprised there is no config on the JGroups side
Is there some recommendation wrt guaranteed delivery etc?
Could we somehow extract two or three default profiles (as well as a
custom one?)
o point #4
I agree with Sanne, the configuration is too opaque and fragile. I
would create:
- MasterJGroupsBackendQueueProcessorFactory
- SlaveJGroupsBackendQueueProcessorFactory
The code will be cleaner.
o point #5
I dont' think that can work easily but we can explore. Maybe by
providing the JNDI name of either the EMF or the SessionFactory we can
have a configuration only approach.
o point #6
I agree Producers and Receivers is confusing for an Hibernate Search
user, let's mask these notions and replace them with master and slaves.
o docs and logs
Generally speaking the code is simple enough that it's reasable but a
few comments were things are surprising will help
logs (debug / trace level) can be of help.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 19:02, Łukasz Moreń wrote:
Hi,
I've finished task concerning JMS replacement with JGroups. The
patch is attached. The general idea of pushing indexes through JG is
assured, however there are issues to improve (i.e. flexible JG
protocol stack configuration). Any review or advices would be
welcome to make sure that I am not going into blind alley.
Thanks,
Lukasz
2009/5/27 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
Lukasz,
I have been discussing with Manik on #3 and we think that JBoss
Cache / Infinispan are probably a better fit than plain JGroups for
that as all the plumbing will be configured for you.
When you reach this problem, let's revive this discussion.
On May 25, 2009, at 11:07, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
Hi,
I talked with Łukasz about this last wekk. Definitely, #1 and #3.
#2 I don't like either.
The befefit of #3 would also be that one could drop the requirement of
having a shared file system (NFS, NAS, ...) #3 should be quite easy to
implement. Maybe easy to get started with.
--Hardy
On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:55:52 +0200, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org
> wrote:
Hello
I am not sure this is where we should go, or at least, it depends.
here are three scenarii
#1 JMS replacement
If you want to use JGroups as a replacement for the JMS backend,
then I think you should write a jgroups backend. Check
org.hibernate.search.backend.impl.jms
In this case all changes are sent via JGroups to a "master". The
master could be voted by the cluster possibly dynamically but that's
not necessary for the first version.
#2 apply indexing on all nodes
JGroups could send the work queue to all nodes and each node could
apply the change.
for various reasons I am not fan of this solution as it creates
overhead in CPU / memory usage and does nto scale very well from a
theoretical PoV.
#3 Index copy
this is what you are describing, copying the index using JGroups
instead of my file system approach. This might have merits esp as we
could diminish network traffic using multicast but it also require
to rethink the master / slave modus operandi.
Today the master copy on a regular basis a clean index to a shared
directory
On a regular basis, the slave go and copy the clean index from the
shared directory.
In your approach, the master would send changes to the slaves and
slaves would have to apply them "right away" (on their passive
version)
I think #1 is more interesting than #3, we probably should start
with that. #3 might be interesting too, thoughts?
Emmanuel
PS: refactoring is a fact of life, so feel free to do so. Just don't
break public contracts.
On May 21, 2009, at 22:14, Łukasz Moreń wrote:
Hi,
I have few questions that concern using JGroups to copy index files.
I think to create sender(for master) and receiver(slave) directory
providers.
Sender class mainly based on existing FSMasterDirectoryProvider,
first create local index copy and send later to slave nodes
(or send without copying, but that may cause lower performance?).
To avoid code redundancy it would be good to refactor a little
FSMasterDirectoryProvider class, so then I can use copying
functionality in new DirectoryProvider and add sending one; or
rather I should work around it?
I do not understand completely how does the multithreading access to
index file work. Does FileChannel class assure that, when index is
copied and new Lucene works are pushed?
<
JGroups_Backend_draft_10
-06-2009.patch>_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev