On 4 Feb 2010, at 16:27, Philippe Van Dyck wrote:
>
> Am I missing something ? Loosing data is something I cannot afford ! I Plan to use
this store as a *permanent* one... I have no backup ! (Actually S3 is the backup) - So,
no, I don't want this ... at any price ;-)
Then set <async enabled="false" /> in your cache store config. :-)
That is exactly what I planned to do... for the FileCacheStore since the latency is quite
low and the failure rate almost zero.
But the S3 store is very slow, and asynchronism is not a luxury...
Right now, I am trying to make my own custom solution based on the size of the cache in
memory (as trigger) and then I will evict specific oldest entries... hoping that async
transactions are fully committed.
>
> reduced by looking through the async queue as well, before checking the underlying
store. But as I said, this just reduces the size of this window and not eliminate it
altogether, since this is async and there is no guarantee that the cache store has
finished writing internally (e.g., an fsync() operation or in the case of S3, Amazon's
eventual consistency model).
>
>
> Why should eviction be transactional? I don't need eviction to be an
all-or-nothing, reversible event. :) If an entry gets evicted, cool. If not (for
whatever reason), too bad, move on to the next evictable entry.
>
> You are right, we don't want to rollback evictions... but maybe we should use a
priority queue to be sure that evictions are done after any other command ? Doesn't it
solve it all ?
>
> 1) The eviction thread runs (we could lower the priority of this thread too)
> 2) It fills a queue of keys to evict
> 3) The async queue is prioritized and evicts entries ... when there is nothing else
to do (suddenly it looks like garbage collecting)
That is a possibility. But I don't expect to be making any drastic changes to the
existing eviction code anymore. Don't know if you have been following discussions re:
LIRS, lock amortization, etc., but Vladimir is working on some very interesting
self-evicting, bounded data containers which would mean that the eviction threads, etc all
get ripped out.
Sounds terrific...
Just to close the subject, shouldn't the documentation explicitly say that async and
eviction are not "compatible" ?
I don't think this really has anything to do with "incompatibilities".
It's just the effects of queued/batched processing in the cache store async threads.
You will see the same problem if you:
1. put (K, V)
2. The put is enqueued in the cache store
3. Restart the cache
4. get (K) // Data loss!? Just an async write that didn't have time to complete.
And the above has nothing to do with eviction.
Cheers
Manik
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org