If non sync evicts are configured, then cyclic buffer should be used. No?
Thanks!
Yakov
On Sep 11, 2015 09:03, "Alexey Goncharuk" <
[hidden email]>
wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I was thinking about ordering updates on backups so that we are able to
> send entry processors on backups as we do in TRANSACTIONAL cache.
>
> What if we send not only the new version of an entry, but also the old
> version (the one that was replaced).
>
> Let's say we have an entry with version v0, and we apply updates with
> versions v1, v2, v3. Instead of sending just (val1, ver1), (val2, ver2),
> (val3, ver3) we can send (val1, ver0->ver1), (val2, ver1->ver2), (val3,
> ver2->ver3). In this case even if updated are processed on a backup node in
> a different order, we can queue updates and wait until all updates are
> received (like we did for ordered messages a while ago).
>
> The only concern that I have is that independent evicts cannot happen on a
> backup node because the version of an entry should always match on primary
> and backup nodes - so we should always initiate evict from primary node and
> use version to evict an entry - basically, treat evict as a remove, but
> with no write-through.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Locked
