On May 23, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Paul Ferraro <paul.ferraro(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 18:03 +0200, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> On May 21, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Paul Ferraro <paul.ferraro(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 17:07 +0200, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>>> On May 6, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3 May 2013, at 20:15, Paul Ferraro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it essential? No - but it would simplify things on my end.
>>>>> If Infinispan can't implement expiration notifications, then I am
forced
>>>>> to use immortal cache entries and perform expiration myself. To do
>>>>> this, I have to store meta information about the cache entry along
with
>>>>> my actual cache values, which normally I would get for free via
mortal
>>>>> cache entries.
>>>>
>>>> In the scope of 5.2, what galder suggested was to fully support
notifications for the entries in memory. In order to fully support your use case you'd
need to add some code to trigger notifications in the cache store as well - I think that
shouldn't be too difficult. What cache store implementation are you using any way?
>>>
>>> ^ Personally, I'd do in-memory entry expiration notifications for 5.2,
and I'd leave cache store based entry expiration for 6.0, when we'll revisit cache
store API, and we can address cache store based entry expiration notification properly.
>>>
>>> Agree everyone?
>>
>> Thanks fine.
>> Just to clarify, the end result is that an expiration notification would
>> only ever be emitted on 1 node per cache entry, correct? That is to
>> say, for a given expired cache entry, the corresponding isOriginLocal()
>> would only ever return true on one node, yes? I just want to make sure
>> that each node won't emit a notification for the same cache entry that
>> was discovered to have expired.
>
> ^ Hmmmm, if you want it to work that way it might need some thinking, and it could be
expensive to achieve...
>
> If the expiration happens when an entry is retrieved from the cache and this is
expired, it's local. So, the way expiration will occur is that when each node accesses
the entry and is expired, it will send a notification to any listener available locally
indicating that the origin is local. The same thing happens when eviction calls
purgeExpired.
That's precisely what I meant, actually.
Ah ok. As you can imagine, given the current logic, there will never be an expiration
noticed generated with isOriginLocal=false (not that I can think of right now at least
-> good thing to note in the docu for this btw)
> The advantage here is that expiration is local, and hence fast. No need to
communicate with other nodes. Your suggestion might require nodes to interact with each
other for expiration to find out where the expiration started to be differentiate between
originLocal=true/false. I'm not sure we want to do this…
In our use case, the entry retrieval is done within the context of
pessimistic locking, so a node would already have exclusive access to
the cache key.
^ So, you've acquired a lock on the key or something? Remember that entry retrieval is
lock-free on its own.
If I understand you correctly, this would inherently
prevent multiple local expiration notifications from every node.
^ Actually, no, because unless there's been a write operation on the key, or lock
called for that key, in the batch or transaction, there will be no locks acquired on the
key. When the key is read from the data container, it's expired there and then,
without acquiring any locks. There might be some local locks acquired, locally, at the
underlying CHM segment, but varies depending on the CHM used underneath when deleting the
entry from the inner container, but these won't affect other nodes. It would only
affect concurrent threads on the same node that read the same key and concurrently try to
expire the entry...
In
this case, if a concurrent entry retrieval occurred on some other node -
by the time that node got access to the lock, it would already have been
removed from the cache store, thus no local expiration notification
would be emitted from that node, correct?
My concern is about any kind of auto-purging of expired cache store
entries within the cache store itself. I imagine this would operate
outside the context of any such locking, thus the potential for local
expiration notifications on multiple nodes for the same cache entry.
Hmmm, not sure I understand this fully, but let me have a go: the situation for entries
expired in cache stores depends slighly on the cache store itself and does not rely on the
in-memory level locking (unless cooperation within a transaction). Some, like the FCS, get
some locks (locally) even for reading from store, so expiration will happen within those
locks if an entry is requested that's expired.
There is the risk for sure for an entry to be expired right at the cache store and never
be loaded into memory, and hence no notifications being sent. But one thing is for sure:
if the entry is in-memory, the notification will be sent, because the in-memory container
is checked before going to the cache store, and no other concurrent expiration in cache
store in another node will stop from in-memory expirations happening (unless I it's a
bug).
Cheers,
> Cheers,
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it would be nice to have. If I have to wait for 6.0 for this,
>>>>> that's ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 17:03 +0200, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-694
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've got a little problem here. Paul requires that entries
that might
>>>>>> have been expired while in the cache store, when loaded, we send
>>>>>> expiration notifications for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that expiration checking is currently done in the
>>>>>> actual cache store implementations, which makes supporting this
(even
>>>>>> outside the purgeExpired business) specific to each cache store.
Not
>>>>>> ideal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The alternative would be for CacheLoaderInterceptor to load, do
the
>>>>>> checks and then remove the entries accordingly. The big problem
here
>>>>>> is that you're imposing a way to deal with expiration
handling for all
>>>>>> cache store implementations, and some might be able to do these
checks
>>>>>> and removals in a more efficient way if they were left to do it
>>>>>> themselves. For example, having to load all entries and then
decide
>>>>>> which are to expire might require a lot of work, instead of
>>>>>> potentially communicating directly with the cache store (imagine
a
>>>>>> remote cache store…) and asking it to return all the entries
filtered
>>>>>> by those whose expiry has not expired.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, even if a cache store can do that, it would lead to
loading
>>>>>> only those entries not expired, but then how do you send the
>>>>>> notifications if those expired entries have been filtered out?
You
>>>>>> probably need multiple load methods here...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Paul, do you really need this for your use case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simplest thing to do might be to go for option 1, and let
each
>>>>>> cache store send notifications for expired entries for the
moment, and
>>>>>> then in 6.0 revise not only the API for purgeExpired, but also
the API
>>>>>> for load/loadAll() to find a way that, if any expiry listeners
are in
>>>>>> place, a different method can be called on the cache store that
>>>>>> signals it to return all entries: both expired and non-expired,
and
>>>>>> then let the CacheLoaderInterceptor send notifications from a
central
>>>>>> location.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Galder Zamarreño
>>>>>> galder(a)redhat.com
>>>>>>
twitter.com/galderz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Project Lead, Escalante
>>>>>>
http://escalante.io
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Engineer, Infinispan
>>>>>>
http://infinispan.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> --
>>>> Mircea Markus
>>>> Infinispan lead (
www.infinispan.org)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Galder Zamarreño
>>> galder(a)redhat.com
>>>
twitter.com/galderz
>>>
>>> Project Lead, Escalante
>>>
http://escalante.io
>>>
>>> Engineer, Infinispan
>>>
http://infinispan.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
> --
> Galder Zamarreño
> galder(a)redhat.com
>
twitter.com/galderz
>
> Project Lead, Escalante
>
http://escalante.io
>
> Engineer, Infinispan
>
http://infinispan.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Galder Zamarreño
galder(a)redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante
http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan
http://infinispan.org