[infinispan-dev] Experiment: Affinity Tagging

[Dan Berindei]

Adrian, I don't think that will work. The Hash doesn't know the number of
segments so it can't tell where a particular key will land - even assuming
knowledge about how the ConsistentHash will map hash codes to segments.

However, I'm all for replacing the current Hash interface with another
interface that maps keys directly to segments.

Cheers
Dan


On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Adrian Nistor <anistor at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Sanne,
>
> An alternative approach would be to implement an
> org.infinispan.commons.hash.Hash which delegates to the stock
> implementation for all keys except those that need to be assigned to a
> specific segment. It should return the desired segment for those.
>
> Adrian
>
>
> On 01/20/2015 02:48 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm playing with an idea for some internal components to be able to
> > "tag" the key for an entry to be stored into Infinispan in a very
> > specific segment of the CH.
> >
> > Conceptually the plan is easy to understand by looking at this patch:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/Sanne/infinispan/commit/45a3d9e62318d5f5f950a60b5bb174d23037335f
> >
> > Hacking the change into ReplicatedConsistentHash is quite barbaric,
> > please bear with me as I couldn't figure a better way to be able to
> > experiment with this. I'll probably want to extend this class, but
> > then I'm not sure how to plug it in?
>

You would need to create your own ConsistentHashFactory, possibly extending
ReplicatedConsistentHashFactory. You can then plug the factory in with

configurationBuilder.clustering().hash().consistentHashFactory(yourFactory)

However, this isn't a really good idea, because then you need a different
implementation for distributed mode, and then another implementation for
topology-aware clusters (with rack/machine/site ids). And your users would
also need to select the proper factory for each cache.


> >
> > What would you all think of such a "tagging" mechanism?
> >
> > # Why I didn't use the KeyAffinityService
> > - I need to use my own keys, not the meaningless stuff produced by the
> service
> > - the extensive usage of Random in there doesn't seem suited for a
> > performance critical path
>

You can plug in your own KeyGenerator to generate keys, and maybe replace
the Random with a static/thread-local counter.


>
>
>
> > # Why I didn't use the Grouping API
> > - I need to pick the specific storage segment, not just co-locate with
> > a different key
> >
>

This is actually a drawback of the KeyAffinityService more than Grouping.
With grouping, you can actually follow the KeyAffinityService strategy and
generate random strings until you get one in the proper segment, and then
tag all your keys with that exact string.


> >
> > The general goal is to make it possible to "tag" all entries of an
> > index, and have an independent index for each segment of the CH. So
> > the resulting effect would be, that when a primary owner for any key K
> > is making an update, and this triggers an index update, that update is
> >   A) going to happen on the same node -> no need to forwarding to a
> > "master indexing node"
> >   B) each such writes on the index happen on the same node which is
> > primary owner for all the written entries of the index.
> >
> > There are two additional nice consequences:
> >   - there would be no need to perform a reliable "master election":
> > ownership singleton is already guaranteed by Infinispan's essential
> > logic, so it would reuse that
> >   - the propagation of writes on the index from the primary owner
> > (which is the local node by definition) to backup owners could use
> > REPL_ASYNC for most practical use cases.
> >
> > So net result is that the overhead for indexing is reduced to 0 (ZERO)
> > blocking RPCs if the async repl is acceptable, or to only one blocking
> > roundtrip if very strict consistency is required.
>

Sounds very interesting, but I think there may be a problem with your
strategy: Infinispan doesn't guarantee you that one of the nodes executing
the CommitCommand is the primary owner at the time the CommitCommand is
executed. You could have something like this:

Cluster [A, B, C, D], key k, owners(k) = [A, B] (A is primary)
C initiates a tx that executes put(k, v)
Tx prepare succeeds on A and B
A crashes, but the other nodes don't detect the crash yet
Tx commit succeeds on B, who still thinks is a backup owner
B detects the crash, installs a new cluster view consistent hash with
owners(k) = [B]



> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sanne
> > _______________________________________________
> > infinispan-dev mailing list
> > infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20150120/1a6deb9a/attachment-0001.html