Re: [infinispan-dev] Re: Distributed hashing - heterogenous nodes

Hi, I have been working on a use of Jboss cache, which has a lot of overlap with the Infinispan project. I expect to be able to employ significant parts of this work in Infinispan as well. One point of overlap is the use of a consistent hash. I have looked at the org.infinispan.distribution.DefaultConsistentHash, and this is actually a simple hash, and not a consistent hash. Luckily I have a version of a consistent hash that can almost be dropped in here. There are a number of properties of a consistent hash that make it valuable for a distributed hash table. - If a server is removed, the number of keys that shift to a different bin (different server) is minimal. - The same key is always mapped to the same server. - If a server is added, the number of keys that shift is minimal. The current DefaultConsistentHash doesn't deliver on these. I hope you don't mind if I go into some details here. For example, the hash is sensitive to the order in which servers appear in the initial collection of caches. If one cache is built with a list of servers (S1, S2, S3), and another is built with a list (S3, S2, S1), keys will be mapped to different servers, even though the set of servers is actually the same. If one server is removed, many, or even all, keys will be shifted. For example one hash with the set of servers (S1, S2, S3) will map many keys to different servers than one with (S2, S3). In a true consistent hash, the keys originally mapped to S2 will remain mapped to S2, and those mapped to S3 will remain mapped to S3. The keys that were mapped to S1 will (depending on the exact implementation) will be divided between S1 and S2. There are a few differences, specifically, I work with arrays rather than collections – in part for performance, I also support weights for the servers, and the replication count is an instance variable rather than an argument to the locate method. How wedded are you to supplying the replication count as part of the locate method? Other than this, it looks like an adaptation of my implementation to Infinispan would be fairly painless, and I suggest replacing the current implementation with it. Alex Kluge _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev