distributed transaction of non-single coordinator

[voipp]

Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
and a commit :
https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06436b638e5c
We really need this feature

чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]>:

> Aleksey,
>
> I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction recovery
> protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal logic.
> For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you want to
> transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx owner
> fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may fail
> with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed, you need
> to notify all current transaction participants about this change, and it
> should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add any tests
> for these cases.
>
> I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with clear
> use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason about the
> changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are making these
> changes and how they are supposed to work.
>
> --AG
>
> 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
> > So, what do u think on my idea ?
> >
> > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
> > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change transaction status
> > to
> > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread. In
> another
> > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit it.
> > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to newer one
> in
> > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState, transactions
> itself
> > to
> > > transfer them into another thread.
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Aleksey,
> > >
> > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what exactly was
> > > done and how the things work.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of non-single
> > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and commit
> it
> > > in
> > > > another thread.
> > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
> > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
> > > >
> > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > >
> > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
> > > >>
> > > >> Sergi
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > >>
> > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your "accumulation"
> > > >>> approach.These are
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary cache
> to
> > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent transactions in
> > > >>> Service
> > > >>>   commiter
> > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in memory
> > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working with
> > cache
> > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's node can
> > > >> evaluate
> > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with both
> types
> > > of
> > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and non-transactional.Another one
> > > >>> problem is
> > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have handled
> all
> > > >> this
> > > >>>   issues and many more.
> > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
> transaction.
> > We
> > > >> put
> > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to solve
> > > >>> difficulties above .
> > > >>>
> > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions of
> > > >> operations
> > > >>> on
> > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
> capacity
> > > >>>> reasonably.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >>> :
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of operations,
> > > >> would
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance degradation
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >>>> :
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values you
> have
> > > >>> read
> > > >>>>>> during the tx.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be
> > > >> relatively
> > > >>>>> easily
> > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
> implement
> > > >> one
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily will
> > end
> > > >>> up
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for your
> keys,
> > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a thread
> for
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a lock on
> the
> > > >> key
> > > >>>>> using
> > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services, wait for
> > all
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the same
> thread
> > > >>>> while
> > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the
> Ignite
> > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic here to
> be
> > > >>> able
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach until you
> > > >> have a
> > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
> > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
> > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one
> altered
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other dependent
> keys.
> > > >>> How
> > > >>>>>> could
> > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course) ?
> > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A introduce
> > > >> changes?
> > > >>>> So
> > > >>>>> no
> > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort of
> > > >>>> pessimistic
> > > >>>>>>> blocking)
> > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only generate
> > > >>> new
> > > >>>>> keys
> > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same cache
> > > >> +
> > > >>>>>> remember
> > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction in some
> > > >>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents by
> > > >> each
> > > >>>>>>> Service:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate
> > > >>> atomic
> > > >>>>>> cache
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> > > >>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated keys
> > > >> and
> > > >>>>> their
> > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite
> > > >>> transaction
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from k*x
> > > >>> keys.
> > > >>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> > > >>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one updated
> the
> > > >>>>>> original
> > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
> > > >>>>> serializability
> > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may need
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> check
> > > >>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of any
> > > >> other
> > > >>>>> keys
> > > >>>>>>> end
> > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be
> > > >> outside
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
> > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for all the
> > > >> old
> > > >>>>> values
> > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every time
> > > >>> you
> > > >>>>>>> change
> > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some special
> > > >> atomic
> > > >>>>>> cache*
> > > >>>>>>> ,
> > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter got a
> > > >>>> values
> > > >>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
> > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*"
> > > >>> Service
> > > >>>>>>> commiter
> > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of version
> > > >>>>> mismatch
> > > >>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it
> > > >> match?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
> > > >>>>> application
> > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following order:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 => v2]
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> [k1
> > > >>>>>> =>
> > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3]
> > > >> to
> > > >>>> [k2
> > > >>>>>> =>
> > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
> > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a unique
> > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the
> > > >>> services.
> > > >>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
> > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an intermediate key
> > > >> and
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>> visible
> > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key
> > > >> `otx`
> > > >>>> must
> > > >>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>> null -
> > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a version
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> value.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to use
> > > >>>> UUID.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with `otx`
> > > >> =
> > > >>> x
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> passes
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
> > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
> > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX duration
> > > >>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>> Service
> > > >>>>>>>>> A
> > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx` =
> > > >> x
> > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions
> > > >> to
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache like
> > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it knows
> > > >>>> `otx`
> > > >>>>> =
> > > >>>>>> x
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 -> ver1,
> > > >> k2
> > > >>>> ->
> > > >>>>>>> ver2,
> > > >>>>>>>> k3
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for all
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> old
> > > >>>>>>> values
> > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just rollbacks
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>>>> signals
> > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent parts of
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>> graph
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one at
> > > >> a
> > > >>>>> time).
> > > >>>>>>>> Also
> > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault tolerance
> > > >>> technics
> > > >>>>>>> because
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
> > > >>>> intermediate
> > > >>>>>>>> results
> > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in case
> > > >> of
> > > >>>> any
> > > >>>>>>> crash
> > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I mean,
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>> use
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
> > > >>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>> yet.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi already
> > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
> > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX
> > > >> state
> > > >>>>> over
> > > >>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required still
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> manage
> > > >>>>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with clean
> > > >>> design
> > > >>>>>>> proposal
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent events.
> > > >> And
> > > >>>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>> then,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
> > > >>>> development
> > > >>>>>>>> stage.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
> > > >>>>>> predefined
> > > >>>>>>>>> graph
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them by
> > > >>> some
> > > >>>>> kind
> > > >>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> managing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> > > >>>> scenarios.
> > > >>>>>> They
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
> > > >>>>>>> framework,
> > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
> > > >> from
> > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
> > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> > > >>> which
> > > >>>>>>> fulfills
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> > > >>>> process)
> > > >>>>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
> > > >>>> *with
> > > >>>>>>> value
> > > >>>>>>>> 1,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
> > > >> sends
> > > >>>> it
> > > >>>>>> to*
> > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
> > > >>>> fulfilled
> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
> > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> > > >>> wrong
> > > >>>>>>>> solution
> > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > >> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
> > > >>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>> one
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
> > > >>>>> rollback
> > > >>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> > > >>> Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
> > > >> some
> > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
> > > >> make
> > > >>>>> sure
> > > >>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> > > >>> make
> > > >>>>> sure
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
> > > >> changes
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
> > > >> be
> > > >>>> met
> > > >>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
> > > >> Sending
> > > >>> TX
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
> > > >>>>>> business
> > > >>>>>>>> case
> > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>>> done
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> much
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
> > > >>> solution?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> > > >>>>> Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
> > > >>>>>> deserializing
> > > >>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
> > > >>>>>>> participating
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
> > > >>> require
> > > >>>>>>> protocol
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
> > > >> performance
> > > >>>>>> issues.
> > > >>>>>>>> IMO
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
> > > >>> on
> > > >>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
> > > >>>> implememntation
> > > >>>>>>>> contains
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
> > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around. Such object may contain
> > > >>> all
> > > >>>>>> sorts
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be passed across, we
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>> create a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> special
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10
> > > >> AM,
> > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, there a couple of
> > > >> issues
> > > >>>>>>> preventing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At first, After transaction
> > > >>>>>>> serialization
> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remote
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server, there is no txState.
> > > >> So
> > > >>>> im
> > > >>>>>>> going
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> put
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one is Deserialized
> > > >>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>> lacks
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field at
> > > >> TransactionProxyImpl.
> > > >>>>>> Perhaps,
> > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>> must
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injected
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
> > > >>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while starting and
> > > >> continuing
> > > >>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization exception in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> writeExternalMeta
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override public void
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> writeExternal(ObjectOutput
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOException
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some meta is cannot be
> > > >>>>> serialized.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > >> 17:25,
> > > >>>>> Alexey
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I am starting to
> > > >> get
> > > >>>> what
> > > >>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>> want,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is the API for the
> > > >>>>> proposed
> > > >>>>>>>>> change?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of transaction
> > > >>> created
> > > >>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite(0)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite(1). This is
> > > >> obviously
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>> possible
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How will you synchronize
> > > >>>> cache
> > > >>>>>>> update
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> actions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say, you have one node that
> > > >>>>> decided
> > > >>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing within this
> > > >>>> transaction.
> > > >>>>>> How
> > > >>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not call commit() and
> > > >>>> rollback()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How do you make sure
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>> either
> > > >>>>>>>>>> commit()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originator failed?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00
> > > >>>>> Дмитрий
> > > >>>>>>>> Рябов
> > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my
> > > >>>>> initial
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership from one node
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originating node is gone
> > > >>>> down.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:36
> > > >> GMT+03:00
> > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Im aiming to span
> > > >>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>> multiple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms(soon).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every node is able to
> > > >>>>> rollback,
> > > >>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.It
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up i
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to transfer tx
> > > >>> between
> > > >>>>>> nodes
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> order
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different node(in the
> > > >>> same
> > > >>>>>> jvm).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > >>>> 15:20,
> > > >>>>>>> Alexey
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that you
> > > >>>> want a
> > > >>>>>>>> concept
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one node to another?
> > > >> My
> > > >>>>>> initial
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to update keys in a
> > > >>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --AG
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:01
> > > >>>> GMT+03:00
> > > >>>>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well. Consider
> > > >>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>> started
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continued
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following test
> > > >>>>>> describes
> > > >>>>>>> my
> > > >>>>>>>>>> idea:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite ignite1 =
> > > >>>>> ignite(0);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactions
> > > >>>>>>>> transactions =
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite1.transactions();
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteCache<String,
> > > >>>>>> Integer>
> > > >>>>>>>>> cache
> > > >>>>>>>>>> =
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite1.getOrCreateCache("
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testCache");
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transaction tx =
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> transactions.txStart(
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concurrency,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isolation);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache.put("key1",
> > > >> 1);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache.put("key2",
> > > >> 2);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx.stop();
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture<Boolean>
> > > >>>>>>>>> fut =
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridTestUtils.runAsync(()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ->
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>> IgniteTransactions
> > > >>>>> ts =
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite(1).transactions();
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Assert.assertNull(ts.tx());
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>> Assert.assertEquals(
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TransactionState.STOPPED,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx.state());
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    ts.txStart(tx);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.ACTIVE,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx.state());
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> cache.put("key3",
> > > >>>> 3);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assert.assertTrue(cache.remove("key2"));
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    tx.commit();
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return true;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> });
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fut.get();
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> Assert.assertEquals(
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TransactionState.COMMITTED,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx.state());
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Assert.assertEquals((long)1,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (long)cache.get("key1"));
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Assert.assertEquals((long)3,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (long)cache.get("key3"));
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>> Assert.assertFalse(cache.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containsKey("key2"));
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In method
> > > >>>>> *ts.txStart(...)*
> > > >>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>> just
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rebind
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *tx*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> >
>

--

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

[voipp]

so what do u think on the issue ?

чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:

> Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
> and a commit :
> https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06436b638e5c
> We really need this feature
>
> чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]
> >:
>
> Aleksey,
>
> I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction recovery
> protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal logic.
> For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you want to
> transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx owner
> fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may fail
> with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed, you need
> to notify all current transaction participants about this change, and it
> should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add any tests
> for these cases.
>
> I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with clear
> use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason about the
> changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are making these
> changes and how they are supposed to work.
>
> --AG
>
> 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
> > So, what do u think on my idea ?
> >
> > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
> > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change transaction status
> > to
> > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread. In
> another
> > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit it.
> > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to newer one
> in
> > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState, transactions
> itself
> > to
> > > transfer them into another thread.
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Aleksey,
> > >
> > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what exactly was
> > > done and how the things work.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of non-single
> > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and commit
> it
> > > in
> > > > another thread.
> > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
> > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
> > > >
> > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > >
> > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
> > > >>
> > > >> Sergi
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > >>
> > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your "accumulation"
> > > >>> approach.These are
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary cache
> to
> > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent transactions in
> > > >>> Service
> > > >>>   commiter
> > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in memory
> > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working with
> > cache
> > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's node can
> > > >> evaluate
> > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with both
> types
> > > of
> > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and non-transactional.Another one
> > > >>> problem is
> > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have handled
> all
> > > >> this
> > > >>>   issues and many more.
> > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
> transaction.
> > We
> > > >> put
> > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to solve
> > > >>> difficulties above .
> > > >>>
> > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions of
> > > >> operations
> > > >>> on
> > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
> capacity
> > > >>>> reasonably.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >>> :
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of operations,
> > > >> would
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance degradation
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >>>> :
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values you
> have
> > > >>> read
> > > >>>>>> during the tx.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be
> > > >> relatively
> > > >>>>> easily
> > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
> implement
> > > >> one
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily will
> > end
> > > >>> up
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for your
> keys,
> > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a thread
> for
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a lock on
> the
> > > >> key
> > > >>>>> using
> > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services, wait for
> > all
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the same
> thread
> > > >>>> while
> > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the
> Ignite
> > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic here to
> be
> > > >>> able
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach until you
> > > >> have a
> > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
> > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
> > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one
> altered
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other dependent
> keys.
> > > >>> How
> > > >>>>>> could
> > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course) ?
> > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A introduce
> > > >> changes?
> > > >>>> So
> > > >>>>> no
> > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort of
> > > >>>> pessimistic
> > > >>>>>>> blocking)
> > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only generate
> > > >>> new
> > > >>>>> keys
> > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same cache
> > > >> +
> > > >>>>>> remember
> > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction in some
> > > >>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents by
> > > >> each
> > > >>>>>>> Service:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate
> > > >>> atomic
> > > >>>>>> cache
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> > > >>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated keys
> > > >> and
> > > >>>>> their
> > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite
> > > >>> transaction
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from k*x
> > > >>> keys.
> > > >>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> > > >>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one updated
> the
> > > >>>>>> original
> > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
> > > >>>>> serializability
> > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may need
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> check
> > > >>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of any
> > > >> other
> > > >>>>> keys
> > > >>>>>>> end
> > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be
> > > >> outside
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
> > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for all the
> > > >> old
> > > >>>>> values
> > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every time
> > > >>> you
> > > >>>>>>> change
> > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some special
> > > >> atomic
> > > >>>>>> cache*
> > > >>>>>>> ,
> > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter got a
> > > >>>> values
> > > >>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
> > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*"
> > > >>> Service
> > > >>>>>>> commiter
> > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of version
> > > >>>>> mismatch
> > > >>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it
> > > >> match?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
> > > >>>>> application
> > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following order:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 => v2]
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> [k1
> > > >>>>>> =>
> > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3]
> > > >> to
> > > >>>> [k2
> > > >>>>>> =>
> > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
> > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a unique
> > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the
> > > >>> services.
> > > >>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
> > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an intermediate key
> > > >> and
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>> visible
> > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key
> > > >> `otx`
> > > >>>> must
> > > >>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>> null -
> > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a version
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> value.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to use
> > > >>>> UUID.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with `otx`
> > > >> =
> > > >>> x
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> passes
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
> > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
> > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX duration
> > > >>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>> Service
> > > >>>>>>>>> A
> > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx` =
> > > >> x
> > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions
> > > >> to
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache like
> > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it knows
> > > >>>> `otx`
> > > >>>>> =
> > > >>>>>> x
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 -> ver1,
> > > >> k2
> > > >>>> ->
> > > >>>>>>> ver2,
> > > >>>>>>>> k3
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for all
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> old
> > > >>>>>>> values
> > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just rollbacks
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>>>> signals
> > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent parts of
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>> graph
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one at
> > > >> a
> > > >>>>> time).
> > > >>>>>>>> Also
> > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault tolerance
> > > >>> technics
> > > >>>>>>> because
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
> > > >>>> intermediate
> > > >>>>>>>> results
> > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in case
> > > >> of
> > > >>>> any
> > > >>>>>>> crash
> > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I mean,
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>> use
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
> > > >>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>> yet.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi already
> > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
> > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX
> > > >> state
> > > >>>>> over
> > > >>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required still
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> manage
> > > >>>>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with clean
> > > >>> design
> > > >>>>>>> proposal
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent events.
> > > >> And
> > > >>>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>> then,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
> > > >>>> development
> > > >>>>>>>> stage.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
> > > >>>>>> predefined
> > > >>>>>>>>> graph
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them by
> > > >>> some
> > > >>>>> kind
> > > >>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> managing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> > > >>>> scenarios.
> > > >>>>>> They
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
> > > >>>>>>> framework,
> > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
> > > >> from
> > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
> > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> > > >>> which
> > > >>>>>>> fulfills
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> > > >>>> process)
> > > >>>>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
> > > >>>> *with
> > > >>>>>>> value
> > > >>>>>>>> 1,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
> > > >> sends
> > > >>>> it
> > > >>>>>> to*
> > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
> > > >>>> fulfilled
> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
> > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> > > >>> wrong
> > > >>>>>>>> solution
> > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > >> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
> > > >>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>> one
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
> > > >>>>> rollback
> > > >>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> > > >>> Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
> > > >> some
> > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
> > > >> make
> > > >>>>> sure
> > > >>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> > > >>> make
> > > >>>>> sure
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
> > > >> changes
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
> > > >> be
> > > >>>> met
> > > >>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
> > > >> Sending
> > > >>> TX
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
> > > >>>>>> business
> > > >>>>>>>> case
> > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>>> done
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> much
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
> > > >>> solution?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> > > >>>>> Vladykin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
> > > >>>>>> deserializing
> > > >>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
> > > >>>>>>> participating
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
> > > >>> require
> > > >>>>>>> protocol
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
> > > >> performance
> > > >>>>>> issues.
> > > >>>>>>>> IMO
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
> > > >>> on
> > > >>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
> > > >>>> implememntation
> > > >>>>>>>> contains
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
> > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around. Such object may contain
> > > >>> all
> > > >>>>>> sorts
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be passed across, we
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>> create a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> special
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10
> > > >> AM,
> > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, there a couple of
> > > >> issues
> > > >>>>>>> preventing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At first, After transaction
> > > >>>>>>> serialization
> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remote
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server, there is no txState.
> > > >> So
> > > >>>> im
> > > >>>>>>> going
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> put
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one is Deserialized
> > > >>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>> lacks
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field at
> > > >> TransactionProxyImpl.
> > > >>>>>> Perhaps,
> > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>> must
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injected
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
> > > >>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while starting and
> > > >> continuing
> > > >>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization exception in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> writeExternalMeta
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override public void
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> writeExternal(ObjectOutput
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOException
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some meta is cannot be
> > > >>>>> serialized.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > >> 17:25,
> > > >>>>> Alexey
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I am starting to
> > > >> get
> > > >>>> what
> > > >>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>> want,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is the API for the
> > > >>>>> proposed
> > > >>>>>>>>> change?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of transaction
> > > >>> created
> > > >>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite(0)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite(1). This is
> > > >> obviously
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>> possible
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How will you synchronize
> > > >>>> cache
> > > >>>>>>> update
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> actions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say, you have one node that
> > > >>>>> decided
> > > >>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing within this
> > > >>>> transaction.
> > > >>>>>> How
> > > >>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not call commit() and
> > > >>>> rollback()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How do you make sure
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>> either
> > > >>>>>>>>>> commit()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originator failed?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00
> > > >>>>> Дмитрий
> > > >>>>>>>> Рябов
> > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my
> > > >>>>> initial
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership from one node
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>>> another
> > > >>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originating node is gone
> > > >>>> down.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:36
> > > >> GMT+03:00
> > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Im aiming to span
> > > >>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>> multiple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms(soon).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every node is able to
> > > >>>>> rollback,
> > > >>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.It
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up i
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to transfer tx
> > > >>> between
> > > >>>>>> nodes
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> order
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different node(in the
> > > >>> same
> > > >>>>>> jvm).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > >>>> 15:20,
> > > >>>>>>> Alexey
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that you
> > > >>>> want a
> > > >>>>>>>> concept
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one node to another?
> > > >> My
> > > >>>>>> initial
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> --

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.

2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:

> so what do u think on the issue ?
>
> чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
> > and a commit :
> > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
> 436b638e5c
> > We really need this feature
> >
> > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> >
> > Aleksey,
> >
> > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction recovery
> > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal logic.
> > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you want to
> > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx owner
> > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may fail
> > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed, you
> need
> > to notify all current transaction participants about this change, and it
> > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add any
> tests
> > for these cases.
> >
> > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with clear
> > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason about
> the
> > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are making
> these
> > changes and how they are supposed to work.
> >
> > --AG
> >
> > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
> > >
> > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
> > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change transaction
> status
> > > to
> > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread. In
> > another
> > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit it.
> > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to newer one
> > in
> > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState, transactions
> > itself
> > > to
> > > > transfer them into another thread.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > Aleksey,
> > > >
> > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what exactly
> was
> > > > done and how the things work.
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
> non-single
> > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and
> commit
> > it
> > > > in
> > > > > another thread.
> > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
> > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
> > > > >
> > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sergi
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your "accumulation"
> > > > >>> approach.These are
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary cache
> > to
> > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent transactions
> in
> > > > >>> Service
> > > > >>>   commiter
> > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in memory
> > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working with
> > > cache
> > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's node can
> > > > >> evaluate
> > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with both
> > types
> > > > of
> > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and non-transactional.Another
> one
> > > > >>> problem is
> > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have handled
> > all
> > > > >> this
> > > > >>>   issues and many more.
> > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
> > transaction.
> > > We
> > > > >> put
> > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to solve
> > > > >>> difficulties above .
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions of
> > > > >> operations
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
> > capacity
> > > > >>>> reasonably.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >>> :
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
> operations,
> > > > >> would
> > > > >>>> not
> > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
> degradation
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>> :
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values you
> > have
> > > > >>> read
> > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be
> > > > >> relatively
> > > > >>>>> easily
> > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
> > implement
> > > > >> one
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily
> will
> > > end
> > > > >>> up
> > > > >>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for your
> > keys,
> > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a thread
> > for
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a lock on
> > the
> > > > >> key
> > > > >>>>> using
> > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services, wait
> for
> > > all
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the same
> > thread
> > > > >>>> while
> > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the
> > Ignite
> > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic here to
> > be
> > > > >>> able
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach until you
> > > > >> have a
> > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > >>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
> > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
> > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one
> > altered
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other dependent
> > keys.
> > > > >>> How
> > > > >>>>>> could
> > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course) ?
> > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A introduce
> > > > >> changes?
> > > > >>>> So
> > > > >>>>> no
> > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort of
> > > > >>>> pessimistic
> > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
> > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only
> generate
> > > > >>> new
> > > > >>>>> keys
> > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same
> cache
> > > > >> +
> > > > >>>>>> remember
> > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction in
> some
> > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents by
> > > > >> each
> > > > >>>>>>> Service:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate
> > > > >>> atomic
> > > > >>>>>> cache
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated keys
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>>>> their
> > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite
> > > > >>> transaction
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from k*x
> > > > >>> keys.
> > > > >>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one updated
> > the
> > > > >>>>>> original
> > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
> > > > >>>>> serializability
> > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may
> need
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>>> check
> > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of any
> > > > >> other
> > > > >>>>> keys
> > > > >>>>>>> end
> > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be
> > > > >> outside
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
> > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for all the
> > > > >> old
> > > > >>>>> values
> > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every
> time
> > > > >>> you
> > > > >>>>>>> change
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some special
> > > > >> atomic
> > > > >>>>>> cache*
> > > > >>>>>>> ,
> > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter got a
> > > > >>>> values
> > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*"
> > > > >>> Service
> > > > >>>>>>> commiter
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of version
> > > > >>>>> mismatch
> > > > >>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it
> > > > >> match?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
> > > > >>>>> application
> > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following
> order:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 => v2]
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>>> [k1
> > > > >>>>>> =>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3]
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>> [k2
> > > > >>>>>> =>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a unique
> > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the
> > > > >>> services.
> > > > >>>>> If
> > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
> > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an intermediate key
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>> visible
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key
> > > > >> `otx`
> > > > >>>> must
> > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a
> version
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to use
> > > > >>>> UUID.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with `otx`
> > > > >> =
> > > > >>> x
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>> passes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX duration
> > > > >>>> after
> > > > >>>>>>>> Service
> > > > >>>>>>>>> A
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx` =
> > > > >> x
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache like
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it knows
> > > > >>>> `otx`
> > > > >>>>> =
> > > > >>>>>> x
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 -> ver1,
> > > > >> k2
> > > > >>>> ->
> > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
> > > > >>>>>>>> k3
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for all
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>> old
> > > > >>>>>>> values
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just rollbacks
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>>>> signals
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent parts of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>>> graph
> > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one at
> > > > >> a
> > > > >>>>> time).
> > > > >>>>>>>> Also
> > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault tolerance
> > > > >>> technics
> > > > >>>>>>> because
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
> > > > >>>> intermediate
> > > > >>>>>>>> results
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in case
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>> crash
> > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I mean,
> > > > >>> we
> > > > >>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>> use
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
> > > > >>>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi already
> > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX
> > > > >> state
> > > > >>>>> over
> > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required still
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>>> manage
> > > > >>>>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with clean
> > > > >>> design
> > > > >>>>>>> proposal
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent events.
> > > > >> And
> > > > >>>>> only
> > > > >>>>>>>> then,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
> > > > >>>> development
> > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
> > > > >>>>>> predefined
> > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them by
> > > > >>> some
> > > > >>>>> kind
> > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible
> > > > >>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>> managing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> > > > >>>> scenarios.
> > > > >>>>>> They
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
> > > > >>>>>>> framework,
> > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
> > > > >> from
> > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
> > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> > > > >>> which
> > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> > > > >>>> process)
> > > > >>>>>>> which
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
> > > > >>>> *with
> > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
> > > > >> sends
> > > > >>>> it
> > > > >>>>>> to*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
> > > > >>> with
> > > > >>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
> > > > >>>> fulfilled
> > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
> > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> > > > >>> wrong
> > > > >>>>>>>> solution
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > >> KUZNETSOV
> > > > >>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
> > > > >>>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>> one
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
> > > > >>>>> rollback
> > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> > > > >>> Vladykin <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
> > > > >> some
> > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
> > > > >> make
> > > > >>>>> sure
> > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> > > > >>> make
> > > > >>>>> sure
> > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
> > > > >> changes
> > > > >>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>> met
> > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
> > > > >> Sending
> > > > >>> TX
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> another
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
> > > > >>>>>> business
> > > > >>>>>>>> case
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>>>> done
> > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > >>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
> > > > >>> solution?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
> > > > >>>>>> deserializing
> > > > >>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
> > > > >>>>>>> participating
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
> > > > >>> require
> > > > >>>>>>> protocol
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
> > > > >> performance
> > > > >>>>>> issues.
> > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
> > > > >>>> implememntation
> > > > >>>>>>>> contains
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
> > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around. Such object may contain
> > > > >>> all
> > > > >>>>>> sorts
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be passed across, we
> > > > >>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>> create a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> special
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10
> > > > >> AM,
> > > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, there a couple of
> > > > >> issues
> > > > >>>>>>> preventing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At first, After transaction
> > > > >>>>>>> serialization
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remote
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server, there is no txState.
> > > > >> So
> > > > >>>> im
> > > > >>>>>>> going
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> put
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one is Deserialized
> > > > >>>>>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> lacks
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field at
> > > > >> TransactionProxyImpl.
> > > > >>>>>> Perhaps,
> > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injected
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
> > > > >>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while starting and
> > > > >> continuing
> > > > >>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization exception in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> writeExternalMeta
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override public void
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> writeExternal(ObjectOutput
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOException
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some meta is cannot be
> > > > >>>>> serialized.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > > >> 17:25,
> > > > >>>>> Alexey
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I am starting to
> > > > >> get
> > > > >>>> what
> > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>> want,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is the API for the
> > > > >>>>> proposed
> > > > >>>>>>>>> change?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of transaction
> > > > >>> created
> > > > >>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite(0)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite(1). This is
> > > > >> obviously
> > > > >>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>> possible
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How will you synchronize
> > > > >>>> cache
> > > > >>>>>>> update
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say, you have one node that
> > > > >>>>> decided
> > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing within this
> > > > >>>> transaction.
> > > > >>>>>> How
> > > > >>>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not call commit() and
> > > > >>>> rollback()
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How do you make sure
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>>>> either
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> commit()
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback()
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originator failed?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00
> > > > >>>>> Дмитрий
> > > > >>>>>>>> Рябов
> > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my
> > > > >>>>> initial
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership from one node
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>>>> another
> > > > >>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originating node is gone
> > > > >>>> down.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:36
> > > > >> GMT+03:00
> > > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Im aiming to span
> > > > >>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> multiple
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms(soon).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every node is able to
> > > > >>>>> rollback,
> > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.It
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up i
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to transfer tx
> > > > >>> between
> > > > >>>>>> nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> order
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different node(in the
> > > > >>> same
> > > > >>>>>> jvm).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > > >>>> 15:20,
> > > > >>>>>>> Alexey
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that you
> > > > >>>> want a
> > > > >>>>>>>> concept
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one node to another?
> > > > >> My
> > > > >>>>>> initial
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>

[voipp]

sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node transactions,
but failed.

пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]>:

> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
>
> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
> > so what do u think on the issue ?
> >
> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
> > > and a commit :
> > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
> > 436b638e5c
> > > We really need this feature
> > >
> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > >
> > > Aleksey,
> > >
> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction recovery
> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal
> logic.
> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you want to
> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx owner
> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may fail
> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed, you
> > need
> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this change, and
> it
> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add any
> > tests
> > > for these cases.
> > >
> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with clear
> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason about
> > the
> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are making
> > these
> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
> > >
> > > --AG
> > >
> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >
> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change transaction
> > status
> > > > to
> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread. In
> > > another
> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit it.
> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to newer
> one
> > > in
> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState, transactions
> > > itself
> > > > to
> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what exactly
> > was
> > > > > done and how the things work.
> > > > >
> > > > > —
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
> > non-single
> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and
> > commit
> > > it
> > > > > in
> > > > > > another thread.
> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sergi
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your "accumulation"
> > > > > >>> approach.These are
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary
> cache
> > > to
> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
> transactions
> > in
> > > > > >>> Service
> > > > > >>>   commiter
> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in memory
> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working
> with
> > > > cache
> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's node
> can
> > > > > >> evaluate
> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with both
> > > types
> > > > > of
> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and non-transactional.Another
> > one
> > > > > >>> problem is
> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
> handled
> > > all
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
> > > transaction.
> > > > We
> > > > > >> put
> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to
> solve
> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions of
> > > > > >> operations
> > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
> > > capacity
> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >>> :
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
> > operations,
> > > > > >> would
> > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
> > degradation
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values you
> > > have
> > > > > >>> read
> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be
> > > > > >> relatively
> > > > > >>>>> easily
> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
> > > implement
> > > > > >> one
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily
> > will
> > > > end
> > > > > >>> up
> > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for your
> > > keys,
> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a
> thread
> > > for
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a lock
> on
> > > the
> > > > > >> key
> > > > > >>>>> using
> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services, wait
> > for
> > > > all
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the same
> > > thread
> > > > > >>>> while
> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic here
> to
> > > be
> > > > > >>> able
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach until
> you
> > > > > >> have a
> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one
> > > altered
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other dependent
> > > keys.
> > > > > >>> How
> > > > > >>>>>> could
> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course) ?
> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A introduce
> > > > > >> changes?
> > > > > >>>> So
> > > > > >>>>> no
> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort of
> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only
> > generate
> > > > > >>> new
> > > > > >>>>> keys
> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same
> > cache
> > > > > >> +
> > > > > >>>>>> remember
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction in
> > some
> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents
> by
> > > > > >> each
> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate
> > > > > >>> atomic
> > > > > >>>>>> cache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in
> some
> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated
> keys
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>>>> their
> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite
> > > > > >>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from
> k*x
> > > > > >>> keys.
> > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in
> some
> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
> updated
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>>> original
> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
> > > > > >>>>> serializability
> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may
> > need
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>>> check
> > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of
> any
> > > > > >> other
> > > > > >>>>> keys
> > > > > >>>>>>> end
> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be
> > > > > >> outside
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for all
> the
> > > > > >> old
> > > > > >>>>> values
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every
> > time
> > > > > >>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>> change
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some special
> > > > > >> atomic
> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter got
> a
> > > > > >>>> values
> > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*"
> > > > > >>> Service
> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
> version
> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
> > > > > >>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it
> > > > > >> match?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
> > > > > >>>>> application
> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following
> > order:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 => v2]
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>>> [k1
> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3]
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>> [k2
> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a
> unique
> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the
> > > > > >>> services.
> > > > > >>>>> If
> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an intermediate
> key
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key
> > > > > >> `otx`
> > > > > >>>> must
> > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a
> > version
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to
> use
> > > > > >>>> UUID.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with
> `otx`
> > > > > >> =
> > > > > >>> x
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
> duration
> > > > > >>>> after
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx`
> =
> > > > > >> x
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache
> like
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it
> knows
> > > > > >>>> `otx`
> > > > > >>>>> =
> > > > > >>>>>> x
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 ->
> ver1,
> > > > > >> k2
> > > > > >>>> ->
> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for all
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>> old
> > > > > >>>>>>> values
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
> rollbacks
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent parts
> of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>>> graph
> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one
> at
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >>>>> time).
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault tolerance
> > > > > >>> technics
> > > > > >>>>>>> because
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
> > > > > >>>> intermediate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in
> case
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I
> mean,
> > > > > >>> we
> > > > > >>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
> already
> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX
> > > > > >> state
> > > > > >>>>> over
> > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required still
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>>> manage
> > > > > >>>>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with clean
> > > > > >>> design
> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent events.
> > > > > >> And
> > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
> > > > > >>>> development
> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them by
> > > > > >>> some
> > > > > >>>>> kind
> > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible
> > > > > >>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
> > > > > >>>>>> They
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> > > > > >>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> > > > > >>>> process)
> > > > > >>>>>>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
> > > > > >>>> *with
> > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
> > > > > >> sends
> > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>> to*
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
> > > > > >>> with
> > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
> > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> > > > > >>> wrong
> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
> > > > > >>>>> rollback
> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
> > > > > >> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
> > > > > >> make
> > > > > >>>>> sure
> > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> > > > > >>> make
> > > > > >>>>> sure
> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
> > > > > >> changes
> > > > > >>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >>>> met
> > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
> > > > > >> Sending
> > > > > >>> TX
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
> > > > > >>>>>> business
> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>>>> done
> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
> > > > > >>> solution?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
> > > > > >>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
> > > > > >>> require
> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
> > > > > >> performance
> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
> > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
> > > > > >>>> implememntation
> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
> > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around. Such object may contain
> > > > > >>> all
> > > > > >>>>>> sorts
> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be passed across, we
> > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>> create a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> special
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10
> > > > > >> AM,
> > > > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, there a couple of
> > > > > >> issues
> > > > > >>>>>>> preventing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At first, After transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>> serialization
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remote
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server, there is no txState.
> > > > > >> So
> > > > > >>>> im
> > > > > >>>>>>> going
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> put
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one is Deserialized
> > > > > >>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> lacks
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field at
> > > > > >> TransactionProxyImpl.
> > > > > >>>>>> Perhaps,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injected
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
> > > > > >>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while starting and
> > > > > >> continuing
> > > > > >>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization exception in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> writeExternalMeta
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override public void
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> writeExternal(ObjectOutput
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOException
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some meta is cannot be
> > > > > >>>>> serialized.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > > > >> 17:25,
> > > > > >>>>> Alexey
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I am starting to
> > > > > >> get
> > > > > >>>> what
> > > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> want,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is the API for the
> > > > > >>>>> proposed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> change?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of transaction
> > > > > >>> created
> > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite(0)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite(1). This is
> > > > > >> obviously
> > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>> possible
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How will you synchronize
> > > > > >>>> cache
> > > > > >>>>>>> update
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say, you have one node that
> > > > > >>>>> decided
> > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing within this
> > > > > >>>> transaction.
> > > > > >>>>>> How
> > > > > >>>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not call commit() and
> > > > > >>>> rollback()
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How do you make sure
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >>>>> either
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> commit()
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rollback()
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originator failed?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00
> > > > > >>>>> Дмитрий
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Рябов
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my
> > > > > >>>>> initial
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership from one node
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>>>> another
> > > > > >>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originating node is gone
> > > > > >>>> down.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-10 15:36
> > > > > >> GMT+03:00
> > > > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Im aiming to span
> > > > > >>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> multiple
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms(soon).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every node is able to
> > > > > >>>>> rollback,
> > > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.It
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up i
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to transfer tx
> > > > > >>> between
> > > > > >>>>>> nodes
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> order
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different node(in the
> > > > > >>> same
> > > > > >>>>>> jvm).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > > > >>>> 15:20,
> > > > > >>>>>>> Alexey
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that you
> > > > > >>>> want a
> > > > > >>>>>>>> concept
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one node to another?
> > > > > >> My
> > > > > >>>>>> initial
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> >
>

--

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

[voipp]

so what do u think on my idea?

пт, 31 Мар 2017 г., 11:05 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:

> sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node transactions,
> but failed.
>
> пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]
> >:
>
> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
>
> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
> > so what do u think on the issue ?
> >
> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
> > > and a commit :
> > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
> > 436b638e5c
> > > We really need this feature
> > >
> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > >
> > > Aleksey,
> > >
> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction recovery
> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal
> logic.
> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you want to
> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx owner
> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may fail
> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed, you
> > need
> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this change, and
> it
> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add any
> > tests
> > > for these cases.
> > >
> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with clear
> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason about
> > the
> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are making
> > these
> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
> > >
> > > --AG
> > >
> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >
> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change transaction
> > status
> > > > to
> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread. In
> > > another
> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit it.
> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to newer
> one
> > > in
> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState, transactions
> > > itself
> > > > to
> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what exactly
> > was
> > > > > done and how the things work.
> > > > >
> > > > > —
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
> > non-single
> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and
> > commit
> > > it
> > > > > in
> > > > > > another thread.
> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sergi
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your "accumulation"
> > > > > >>> approach.These are
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary
> cache
> > > to
> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
> transactions
> > in
> > > > > >>> Service
> > > > > >>>   commiter
> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in memory
> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working
> with
> > > > cache
> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's node
> can
> > > > > >> evaluate
> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with both
> > > types
> > > > > of
> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and non-transactional.Another
> > one
> > > > > >>> problem is
> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
> handled
> > > all
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
> > > transaction.
> > > > We
> > > > > >> put
> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to
> solve
> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions of
> > > > > >> operations
> > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
> > > capacity
> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >>> :
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
> > operations,
> > > > > >> would
> > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
> > degradation
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values you
> > > have
> > > > > >>> read
> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be
> > > > > >> relatively
> > > > > >>>>> easily
> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
> > > implement
> > > > > >> one
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily
> > will
> > > > end
> > > > > >>> up
> > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for your
> > > keys,
> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a
> thread
> > > for
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a lock
> on
> > > the
> > > > > >> key
> > > > > >>>>> using
> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services, wait
> > for
> > > > all
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the same
> > > thread
> > > > > >>>> while
> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic here
> to
> > > be
> > > > > >>> able
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach until
> you
> > > > > >> have a
> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one
> > > altered
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other dependent
> > > keys.
> > > > > >>> How
> > > > > >>>>>> could
> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course) ?
> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A introduce
> > > > > >> changes?
> > > > > >>>> So
> > > > > >>>>> no
> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort of
> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only
> > generate
> > > > > >>> new
> > > > > >>>>> keys
> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same
> > cache
> > > > > >> +
> > > > > >>>>>> remember
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction in
> > some
> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents
> by
> > > > > >> each
> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate
> > > > > >>> atomic
> > > > > >>>>>> cache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in
> some
> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated
> keys
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>>>> their
> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite
> > > > > >>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from
> k*x
> > > > > >>> keys.
> > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in
> some
> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
> updated
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>>> original
> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
> > > > > >>>>> serializability
> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may
> > need
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>>> check
> > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of
> any
> > > > > >> other
> > > > > >>>>> keys
> > > > > >>>>>>> end
> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be
> > > > > >> outside
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for all
> the
> > > > > >> old
> > > > > >>>>> values
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every
> > time
> > > > > >>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>> change
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some special
> > > > > >> atomic
> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter got
> a
> > > > > >>>> values
> > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*"
> > > > > >>> Service
> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
> version
> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
> > > > > >>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it
> > > > > >> match?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
> > > > > >>>>> application
> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following
> > order:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 => v2]
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>>> [k1
> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3]
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>> [k2
> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a
> unique
> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the
> > > > > >>> services.
> > > > > >>>>> If
> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an intermediate
> key
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key
> > > > > >> `otx`
> > > > > >>>> must
> > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a
> > version
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to
> use
> > > > > >>>> UUID.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with
> `otx`
> > > > > >> =
> > > > > >>> x
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
> duration
> > > > > >>>> after
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx`
> =
> > > > > >> x
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache
> like
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it
> knows
> > > > > >>>> `otx`
> > > > > >>>>> =
> > > > > >>>>>> x
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 ->
> ver1,
> > > > > >> k2
> > > > > >>>> ->
> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for all
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>> old
> > > > > >>>>>>> values
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
> rollbacks
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent parts
> of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>>> graph
> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one
> at
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >>>>> time).
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault tolerance
> > > > > >>> technics
> > > > > >>>>>>> because
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
> > > > > >>>> intermediate
> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in
> case
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I
> mean,
> > > > > >>> we
> > > > > >>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
> already
> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX
> > > > > >> state
> > > > > >>>>> over
> > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required still
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>>> manage
> > > > > >>>>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with clean
> > > > > >>> design
> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent events.
> > > > > >> And
> > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
> > > > > >>>> development
> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them by
> > > > > >>> some
> > > > > >>>>> kind
> > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible
> > > > > >>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
> > > > > >>>>>> They
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> > > > > >>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> > > > > >>>> process)
> > > > > >>>>>>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
> > > > > >>>> *with
> > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
> > > > > >> sends
> > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>> to*
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
> > > > > >>> with
> > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
> > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> > > > > >>> wrong
> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
> > > > > >>>>> rollback
> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
> > > > > >> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
> > > > > >> make
> > > > > >>>>> sure
> > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> > > > > >>> make
> > > > > >>>>> sure
> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
> > > > > >> changes
> > > > > >>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >>>> met
> > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
> > > > > >> Sending
> > > > > >>> TX
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
> > > > > >>>>>> business
> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>>>> done
> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
> > > > > >>> solution?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
> > > > > >>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
> > > > > >>> require
> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
> > > > > >> performance
> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
> > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
> > > > > >>>> implememntation
> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
> > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around. Such object may contain
> > > > > >>> all
> > > > > >>>>>> sorts
> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be passed across, we
> > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>> create a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> special
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10
> > > > > >> AM,
> > > > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, there a couple of
> > > > > >> issues
> > > > > >>>>>>> preventing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At first, After transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>> serialization
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remote
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server, there is no txState.
> > > > > >> So
> > > > > >>>> im
> > > > > >>>>>>> going
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> put
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one is Deserialized
> > > > > >>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> lacks
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field at
> > > > > >> TransactionProxyImpl.
> > > > > >>>>>> Perhaps,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injected
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
> > > > > >>>>> ALEKSEY
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while starting and
> > > > > >> continuing
> > > > > >>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization exception in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> writeExternalMeta
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override public void
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> writeExternal(ObjectOutput
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOException
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some meta is cannot be
> > > > > >>>>> serialized.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > > > >> 17:25,
> > > > > >>>>> Alexey
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I am starting to
> > > > > >> get
> > > > > >>>> what
> > > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> want,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is the API for the
> > > > > >>>>> proposed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> change?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of transaction
> > > > > >>> created
> > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite(0)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite(1). This is
> > > > > >> obviously
> > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>> possible
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How will you synchronize
> > > > > >>>> cache
> > > > > >>>>>>> update
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say, you have one node that
> > > > > >>>>> decided
> > > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commit,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing within this
> > > > > >>>> transaction.
> > > > > >>>>>> How
> > > > > >>>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> --

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

[voipp]

Igntrs.
Im rewieving all usages of threadId of
transaction.(IgniteTxAdapter#threadID). What is the point of usage threadId
in mvcc entry ?

пн, 3 апр. 2017 г. в 9:47, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:

> so what do u think on my idea?
>
> пт, 31 Мар 2017 г., 11:05 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
>> sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node transactions,
>> but failed.
>>
>> пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]
>> >:
>>
>> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
>> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
>>
>> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > so what do u think on the issue ?
>> >
>> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
>> > > and a commit :
>> > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
>> > 436b638e5c
>> > > We really need this feature
>> > >
>> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > > >:
>> > >
>> > > Aleksey,
>> > >
>> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction recovery
>> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal
>> logic.
>> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you want
>> to
>> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx owner
>> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may
>> fail
>> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed, you
>> > need
>> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this change, and
>> it
>> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add any
>> > tests
>> > > for these cases.
>> > >
>> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with clear
>> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason about
>> > the
>> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are making
>> > these
>> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
>> > >
>> > > --AG
>> > >
>> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> > >
>> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
>> > > >
>> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > > >:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
>> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change transaction
>> > status
>> > > > to
>> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread. In
>> > > another
>> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit it.
>> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to newer
>> one
>> > > in
>> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState, transactions
>> > > itself
>> > > > to
>> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Aleksey,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what exactly
>> > was
>> > > > > done and how the things work.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > —
>> > > > > Denis
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
>> > non-single
>> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and
>> > commit
>> > > it
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > another thread.
>> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
>> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > > >:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Sergi
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your
>> "accumulation"
>> > > > > >>> approach.These are
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary
>> cache
>> > > to
>> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
>> transactions
>> > in
>> > > > > >>> Service
>> > > > > >>>   commiter
>> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in
>> memory
>> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working
>> with
>> > > > cache
>> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's node
>> can
>> > > > > >> evaluate
>> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with
>> both
>> > > types
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and non-transactional.Another
>> > one
>> > > > > >>> problem is
>> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
>> handled
>> > > all
>> > > > > >> this
>> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
>> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
>> > > transaction.
>> > > > We
>> > > > > >> put
>> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to
>> solve
>> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions of
>> > > > > >> operations
>> > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
>> > > capacity
>> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>> :
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
>> > operations,
>> > > > > >> would
>> > > > > >>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
>> > degradation
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > > > > >> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values
>> you
>> > > have
>> > > > > >>> read
>> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be
>> > > > > >> relatively
>> > > > > >>>>> easily
>> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
>> > > implement
>> > > > > >> one
>> > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily
>> > will
>> > > > end
>> > > > > >>> up
>> > > > > >>>>> with
>> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for your
>> > > keys,
>> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a
>> thread
>> > > for
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a lock
>> on
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> key
>> > > > > >>>>> using
>> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services, wait
>> > for
>> > > > all
>> > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the same
>> > > thread
>> > > > > >>>> while
>> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the
>> > > Ignite
>> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic
>> here to
>> > > be
>> > > > > >>> able
>> > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach until
>> you
>> > > > > >> have a
>> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > > >>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
>> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
>> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one
>> > > altered
>> > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other
>> dependent
>> > > keys.
>> > > > > >>> How
>> > > > > >>>>>> could
>> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course) ?
>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A introduce
>> > > > > >> changes?
>> > > > > >>>> So
>> > > > > >>>>> no
>> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort of
>> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
>> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
>> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only
>> > generate
>> > > > > >>> new
>> > > > > >>>>> keys
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same
>> > cache
>> > > > > >> +
>> > > > > >>>>>> remember
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction in
>> > some
>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache
>> contents by
>> > > > > >> each
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some
>> separate
>> > > > > >>> atomic
>> > > > > >>>>>> cache
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in
>> some
>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated
>> keys
>> > > > > >> and
>> > > > > >>>>> their
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite
>> > > > > >>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from
>> k*x
>> > > > > >>> keys.
>> > > > > >>>>> The
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in
>> some
>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
>> updated
>> > > the
>> > > > > >>>>>> original
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
>> > > > > >>>>> serializability
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may
>> > need
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >>>>> check
>> > > > > >>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of
>> any
>> > > > > >> other
>> > > > > >>>>> keys
>> > > > > >>>>>>> end
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be
>> > > > > >> outside
>> > > > > >>> of
>> > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for all
>> the
>> > > > > >> old
>> > > > > >>>>> values
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every
>> > time
>> > > > > >>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>> change
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some special
>> > > > > >> atomic
>> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
>> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter
>> got a
>> > > > > >>>> values
>> > > > > >>>>>> with
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*"
>> > > > > >>> Service
>> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
>> version
>> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
>> > > > > >>>>>> or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it
>> > > > > >> match?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
>> > > > > >>>>> application
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following
>> > order:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 =>
>> v2]
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >>>>> [k1
>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3]
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >>>> [k2
>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a
>> unique
>> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the
>> > > > > >>> services.
>> > > > > >>>>> If
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an intermediate
>> key
>> > > > > >> and
>> > > > > >>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key
>> > > > > >> `otx`
>> > > > > >>>> must
>> > > > > >>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a
>> > version
>> > > > > >>> of
>> > > > > >>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to
>> use
>> > > > > >>>> UUID.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with
>> `otx`
>> > > > > >> =
>> > > > > >>> x
>> > > > > >>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
>> duration
>> > > > > >>>> after
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field
>> `otx` =
>> > > > > >> x
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old
>> versions
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache
>> like
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it
>> knows
>> > > > > >>>> `otx`
>> > > > > >>>>> =
>> > > > > >>>>>> x
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 ->
>> ver1,
>> > > > > >> k2
>> > > > > >>>> ->
>> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for all
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >>>> old
>> > > > > >>>>>>> values
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
>> rollbacks
>> > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new
>> `otx`
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent parts
>> of
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >>>>> graph
>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only
>> one at
>> > > > > >> a
>> > > > > >>>>> time).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault tolerance
>> > > > > >>> technics
>> > > > > >>>>>>> because
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
>> > > > > >>>> intermediate
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in
>> case
>> > > > > >> of
>> > > > > >>>> any
>> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I
>> mean,
>> > > > > >>> we
>> > > > > >>>>> can
>> > > > > >>>>>>> make
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
>> already
>> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX
>> > > > > >> state
>> > > > > >>>>> over
>> > > > > >>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required still
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >>>>> manage
>> > > > > >>>>>>> all
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with clean
>> > > > > >>> design
>> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent events.
>> > > > > >> And
>> > > > > >>>>> only
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
>> > > > > >>>> development
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
>> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them by
>> > > > > >>> some
>> > > > > >>>>> kind
>> > > > > >>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them, right?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible
>> > > > > >>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
>> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
>> > > > > >>>>>> They
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
>> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
>> > > > > >> from
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
>> > > > > >>> which
>> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
>> > > > > >>>> process)
>> > > > > >>>>>>> which
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
>> > > > > >>>> *with
>> > > > > >>>>>>> value
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
>> > > > > >> sends
>> > > > > >>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>> to*
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
>> > > > > >>> with
>> > > > > >>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
>> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
>> > > > > >>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
>> > > > > >>> wrong
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
>> > > > > >>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
>> > > > > >>>>> rollback
>> > > > > >>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
>> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
>> > > > > >> some
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
>> > > > > >> make
>> > > > > >>>>> sure
>> > > > > >>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
>> > > > > >>> make
>> > > > > >>>>> sure
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
>> > > > > >> changes
>> > > > > >>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
>> > > > > >> be
>> > > > > >>>> met
>> > > > > >>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
>> > > > > >> Sending
>> > > > > >>> TX
>> > > > > >>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
>> > > > > >>>>>> business
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
>> > > > > >>> be
>> > > > > >>>>> done
>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > > > > >>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
>> > > > > >>> solution?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
>> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
>> > > > > >>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
>> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
>> > > > > >>> require
>> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
>> > > > > >> performance
>> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
>> > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > >>>>> it.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > > > > >>>>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
>> > > > > >>>> implememntation
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
>> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
>> > > > > >>> that
>> > > > > >>>>> we
>> > > > > >>>>>>> are
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around. Such object may contain
>> > > > > >>> all
>> > > > > >>>>>> sorts
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be passed across, we
>> > > > > >>>> should
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> create a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> special
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10
>> > > > > >> AM,
>> > > > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, there a couple of
>> > > > > >> issues
>> > > > > >>>>>>> preventing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At first, After transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>> serialization
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remote
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server, there is no txState.
>> > > > > >> So
>> > > > > >>>> im
>> > > > > >>>>>>> going
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> put
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >> writeExternal()\readExternal()
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one is Deserialized
>> > > > > >>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> lacks
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field at
>> > > > > >> TransactionProxyImpl.
>> > > > > >>>>>> Perhaps,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injected
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridResourceProcessor ?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
>> > > > > >>>>> ALEKSEY
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while starting and
>> > > > > >> continuing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization exception in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> writeExternalMeta
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override public void
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> writeExternal(ObjectOutput
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOException
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    writeExternalMeta(out);
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some meta is cannot be
>> > > > > >>>>> serialized.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
>> > > > > >> 17:25,
>> > > > > >>>>> Alexey
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I am starting to
>> > > > > >> get
>> > > > > >>>> what
>> > > > > >>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> want,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is the API for the
>> > > > > >>>>> proposed
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> change?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of transaction
>> > > > > >>> created
>> > > > > >>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite(0)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite(1). This is
>> > > > > >> obviously
>> > > > > >>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> possible
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (multi-jvm) environment.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How will you synchronize
>> > > > > >>>> cache
>> > > > > >>>>>>> update
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actions
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say, you have one node that
>> > > > > >>>>> decided
>> > > > > >>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing within this
>> > > > > >>>> transaction.
>> > > > > >>>>>> How
>> > > > > >>>>>>> do
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>

--

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

[voipp]

I've attached HangTest. I suppose it should not hang, am i right ?

чт, 29 июн. 2017 г. в 14:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:

> Igntrs.
> Im rewieving all usages of threadId of
> transaction.(IgniteTxAdapter#threadID). What is the point of usage threadId
> in mvcc entry ?
>
> пн, 3 апр. 2017 г. в 9:47, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
>> so what do u think on my idea?
>>
>> пт, 31 Мар 2017 г., 11:05 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node transactions,
>>> but failed.
>>>
>>> пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
>>> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
>>>
>>> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> > so what do u think on the issue ?
>>> >
>>> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
>>> >:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
>>> > > and a commit :
>>> > >
>>> https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
>>> > 436b638e5c
>>> > > We really need this feature
>>> > >
>>> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > > >:
>>> > >
>>> > > Aleksey,
>>> > >
>>> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction recovery
>>> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal
>>> logic.
>>> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you want
>>> to
>>> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx
>>> owner
>>> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may
>>> fail
>>> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed,
>>> you
>>> > need
>>> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this change,
>>> and it
>>> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add any
>>> > tests
>>> > > for these cases.
>>> > >
>>> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with
>>> clear
>>> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason
>>> about
>>> > the
>>> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are making
>>> > these
>>> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
>>> > >
>>> > > --AG
>>> > >
>>> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> [hidden email]>:
>>> > >
>>> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > > >:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
>>> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change transaction
>>> > status
>>> > > > to
>>> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread. In
>>> > > another
>>> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit it.
>>> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to
>>> newer one
>>> > > in
>>> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState, transactions
>>> > > itself
>>> > > > to
>>> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Aleksey,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what
>>> exactly
>>> > was
>>> > > > > done and how the things work.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > —
>>> > > > > Denis
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > [hidden email]>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
>>> > non-single
>>> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and
>>> > commit
>>> > > it
>>> > > > > in
>>> > > > > > another thread.
>>> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
>>> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> > > [hidden email]
>>> > > > >:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >:
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your
>>> "accumulation"
>>> > > > > >>> approach.These are
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary
>>> cache
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
>>> transactions
>>> > in
>>> > > > > >>> Service
>>> > > > > >>>   commiter
>>> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in
>>> memory
>>> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working
>>> with
>>> > > > cache
>>> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's
>>> node can
>>> > > > > >> evaluate
>>> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with
>>> both
>>> > > types
>>> > > > > of
>>> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and
>>> non-transactional.Another
>>> > one
>>> > > > > >>> problem is
>>> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
>>> handled
>>> > > all
>>> > > > > >> this
>>> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
>>> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
>>> > > transaction.
>>> > > > We
>>> > > > > >> put
>>> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to
>>> solve
>>> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> > > > [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >:
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions
>>> of
>>> > > > > >> operations
>>> > > > > >>> on
>>> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
>>> > > capacity
>>> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > > [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
>>> > operations,
>>> > > > > >> would
>>> > > > > >>>> not
>>> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
>>> > degradation
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> > > > > >> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values
>>> you
>>> > > have
>>> > > > > >>> read
>>> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be
>>> > > > > >> relatively
>>> > > > > >>>>> easily
>>> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
>>> > > implement
>>> > > > > >> one
>>> > > > > >>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily
>>> > will
>>> > > > end
>>> > > > > >>> up
>>> > > > > >>>>> with
>>> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for
>>> your
>>> > > keys,
>>> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a
>>> thread
>>> > > for
>>> > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a
>>> lock on
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > >> key
>>> > > > > >>>>> using
>>> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services,
>>> wait
>>> > for
>>> > > > all
>>> > > > > >>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the
>>> same
>>> > > thread
>>> > > > > >>>> while
>>> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the
>>> > > Ignite
>>> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic
>>> here to
>>> > > be
>>> > > > > >>> able
>>> > > > > >>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach
>>> until you
>>> > > > > >> have a
>>> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > > >>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one
>>> > > altered
>>> > > > > >>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other
>>> dependent
>>> > > keys.
>>> > > > > >>> How
>>> > > > > >>>>>> could
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course)
>>> ?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A
>>> introduce
>>> > > > > >> changes?
>>> > > > > >>>> So
>>> > > > > >>>>> no
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort
>>> of
>>> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only
>>> > generate
>>> > > > > >>> new
>>> > > > > >>>>> keys
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same
>>> > cache
>>> > > > > >> +
>>> > > > > >>>>>> remember
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction
>>> in
>>> > some
>>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache
>>> contents by
>>> > > > > >> each
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some
>>> separate
>>> > > > > >>> atomic
>>> > > > > >>>>>> cache
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in
>>> some
>>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated
>>> keys
>>> > > > > >> and
>>> > > > > >>>>> their
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite
>>> > > > > >>> transaction
>>> > > > > >>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken
>>> from k*x
>>> > > > > >>> keys.
>>> > > > > >>>>> The
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in
>>> some
>>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
>>> updated
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > >>>>>> original
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
>>> > > > > >>>>> serializability
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we
>>> may
>>> > need
>>> > > > > >> to
>>> > > > > >>>>> check
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> not
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of
>>> any
>>> > > > > >> other
>>> > > > > >>>>> keys
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> end
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be
>>> > > > > >> outside
>>> > > > > >>> of
>>> > > > > >>>>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for all
>>> the
>>> > > > > >> old
>>> > > > > >>>>> values
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every
>>> > time
>>> > > > > >>> you
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> change
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some special
>>> > > > > >> atomic
>>> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter
>>> got a
>>> > > > > >>>> values
>>> > > > > >>>>>> with
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*"
>>> > > > > >>> Service
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
>>> version
>>> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
>>> > > > > >>>>>> or
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it
>>> > > > > >> match?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
>>> > > > > >>>>> application
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following
>>> > order:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 =>
>>> v2]
>>> > > > > >> to
>>> > > > > >>>>> [k1
>>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 =>
>>> v3]
>>> > > > > >> to
>>> > > > > >>>> [k2
>>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a
>>> unique
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the
>>> > > > > >>> services.
>>> > > > > >>>>> If
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an intermediate
>>> key
>>> > > > > >> and
>>> > > > > >>>> is
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key
>>> > > > > >> `otx`
>>> > > > > >>>> must
>>> > > > > >>>>>> be
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for
>>> everyone.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a
>>> > version
>>> > > > > >>> of
>>> > > > > >>>>> that
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is
>>> to use
>>> > > > > >>>> UUID.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with
>>> `otx`
>>> > > > > >> =
>>> > > > > >>> x
>>> > > > > >>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
>>> duration
>>> > > > > >>>> after
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field
>>> `otx` =
>>> > > > > >> x
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old
>>> versions
>>> > > > > >> to
>>> > > > > >>>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache
>>> like
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it
>>> knows
>>> > > > > >>>> `otx`
>>> > > > > >>>>> =
>>> > > > > >>>>>> x
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 ->
>>> ver1,
>>> > > > > >> k2
>>> > > > > >>>> ->
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` =
>>> x
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for
>>> all
>>> > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > >>>> old
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> values
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
>>> rollbacks
>>> > > > > >>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new
>>> `otx`
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent
>>> parts of
>>> > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > >>>>> graph
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only
>>> one at
>>> > > > > >> a
>>> > > > > >>>>> time).
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault tolerance
>>> > > > > >>> technics
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> because
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
>>> > > > > >>>> intermediate
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in
>>> case
>>> > > > > >> of
>>> > > > > >>>> any
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I
>>> mean,
>>> > > > > >>> we
>>> > > > > >>>>> can
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> make
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
>>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
>>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
>>> already
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX
>>> > > > > >> state
>>> > > > > >>>>> over
>>> > > > > >>>>>> a
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required
>>> still
>>> > > > > >> to
>>> > > > > >>>>> manage
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> all
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with clean
>>> > > > > >>> design
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent
>>> events.
>>> > > > > >> And
>>> > > > > >>>>> only
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
>>> > > > > >>>> development
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV
>>> <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
>>> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them by
>>> > > > > >>> some
>>> > > > > >>>>> kind
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> of
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them, right?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible
>>> > > > > >>> for
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
>>> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
>>> > > > > >>>>>> They
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
>>> > > > > >> from
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
>>> > > > > >>> which
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
>>> > > > > >>>> process)
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> which
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
>>> > > > > >>>> *with
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> value
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
>>> > > > > >> sends
>>> > > > > >>>> it
>>> > > > > >>>>>> to*
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
>>> > > > > >>> with
>>> > > > > >>>>> it
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
>>> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
>>> > > > > >>>>>> in
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
>>> > > > > >>> wrong
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>>> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
>>> > > > > >>> <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
>>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
>>> > > > > >>>>> rollback
>>> > > > > >>>>>> it
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
>>> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
>>> > > > > >> some
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
>>> > > > > >> make
>>> > > > > >>>>> sure
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> that
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
>>> > > > > >>> make
>>> > > > > >>>>> sure
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
>>> > > > > >> changes
>>> > > > > >>> in
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
>>> > > > > >> be
>>> > > > > >>>> met
>>> > > > > >>>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
>>> > > > > >> Sending
>>> > > > > >>> TX
>>> > > > > >>>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
>>> > > > > >>>>>> business
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
>>> > > > > >>> be
>>> > > > > >>>>> done
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>>> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
>>> > > > > >>>>> <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
>>> > > > > >>> solution?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
>>> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> it
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
>>> > > > > >>> require
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
>>> > > > > >> performance
>>> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
>>> > > > > >>> on
>>> > > > > >>>>> it.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>>> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
>>> > > > > >>>> implememntation
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
>>> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
>>> > > > > >>> that
>>> > > > > >>>>> we
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> are
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
>>>
>>> --

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

[Yakov Zhdanov-2]

Alex, I have commented in the ticket. Please take a look.

Thanks!
--
Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
*GridGain Systems*
www.gridgain.com

2017-06-29 17:27 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:

> I've attached HangTest. I suppose it should not hang, am i right ?
>
> чт, 29 июн. 2017 г. в 14:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Igntrs.
> > Im rewieving all usages of threadId of
> > transaction.(IgniteTxAdapter#threadID). What is the point of usage
> threadId
> > in mvcc entry ?
> >
> > пн, 3 апр. 2017 г. в 9:47, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> so what do u think on my idea?
> >>
> >> пт, 31 Мар 2017 г., 11:05 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >>> sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node
> transactions,
> >>> but failed.
> >>>
> >>> пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>
> >>> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
> >>> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
> >>>
> >>> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
> >:
> >>>
> >>> > so what do u think on the issue ?
> >>> >
> >>> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> [hidden email]
> >>> >:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
> >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
> >>> > > and a commit :
> >>> > >
> >>> https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
> >>> > 436b638e5c
> >>> > > We really need this feature
> >>> > >
> >>> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> > [hidden email]
> >>> > > >:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Aleksey,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction
> recovery
> >>> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal
> >>> logic.
> >>> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you
> want
> >>> to
> >>> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx
> >>> owner
> >>> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may
> >>> fail
> >>> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed,
> >>> you
> >>> > need
> >>> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this change,
> >>> and it
> >>> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add
> any
> >>> > tests
> >>> > > for these cases.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with
> >>> clear
> >>> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason
> >>> about
> >>> > the
> >>> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are
> making
> >>> > these
> >>> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --AG
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> [hidden email]>:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > [hidden email]
> >>> > > >:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
> >>> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change
> transaction
> >>> > status
> >>> > > > to
> >>> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread.
> In
> >>> > > another
> >>> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit
> it.
> >>> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to
> >>> newer one
> >>> > > in
> >>> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState,
> transactions
> >>> > > itself
> >>> > > > to
> >>> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Aleksey,
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what
> >>> exactly
> >>> > was
> >>> > > > > done and how the things work.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > —
> >>> > > > > Denis
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > [hidden email]>
> >>> > > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
> >>> > non-single
> >>> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and
> >>> > commit
> >>> > > it
> >>> > > > > in
> >>> > > > > > another thread.
> >>> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
> >>> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > [hidden email]
> >>> > > > >:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >:
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your
> >>> "accumulation"
> >>> > > > > >>> approach.These are
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary
> >>> cache
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
> >>> transactions
> >>> > in
> >>> > > > > >>> Service
> >>> > > > > >>>   commiter
> >>> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in
> >>> memory
> >>> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working
> >>> with
> >>> > > > cache
> >>> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's
> >>> node can
> >>> > > > > >> evaluate
> >>> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with
> >>> both
> >>> > > types
> >>> > > > > of
> >>> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and
> >>> non-transactional.Another
> >>> > one
> >>> > > > > >>> problem is
> >>> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
> >>> handled
> >>> > > all
> >>> > > > > >> this
> >>> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
> >>> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
> >>> > > transaction.
> >>> > > > We
> >>> > > > > >> put
> >>> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to
> >>> solve
> >>> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >:
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions
> >>> of
> >>> > > > > >> operations
> >>> > > > > >>> on
> >>> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
> >>> > > capacity
> >>> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
> >>> > > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
> >>> > operations,
> >>> > > > > >> would
> >>> > > > > >>>> not
> >>> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
> >>> > degradation
> >>> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values
> >>> you
> >>> > > have
> >>> > > > > >>> read
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can
> be
> >>> > > > > >> relatively
> >>> > > > > >>>>> easily
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
> >>> > > implement
> >>> > > > > >> one
> >>> > > > > >>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you
> easily
> >>> > will
> >>> > > > end
> >>> > > > > >>> up
> >>> > > > > >>>>> with
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for
> >>> your
> >>> > > keys,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a
> >>> thread
> >>> > > for
> >>> > > > > >> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a
> >>> lock on
> >>> > > the
> >>> > > > > >> key
> >>> > > > > >>>>> using
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services,
> >>> wait
> >>> > for
> >>> > > > all
> >>> > > > > >>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the
> >>> same
> >>> > > thread
> >>> > > > > >>>> while
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all
> the
> >>> > > Ignite
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic
> >>> here to
> >>> > > be
> >>> > > > > >>> able
> >>> > > > > >>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach
> >>> until you
> >>> > > > > >> have a
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no
> one
> >>> > > altered
> >>> > > > > >>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other
> >>> dependent
> >>> > > keys.
> >>> > > > > >>> How
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> could
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of
> course)
> >>> ?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A
> >>> introduce
> >>> > > > > >> changes?
> >>> > > > > >>>> So
> >>> > > > > >>>>> no
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort
> >>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only
> >>> > generate
> >>> > > > > >>> new
> >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the
> same
> >>> > cache
> >>> > > > > >> +
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> remember
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction
> >>> in
> >>> > some
> >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache
> >>> contents by
> >>> > > > > >> each
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some
> >>> separate
> >>> > > > > >>> atomic
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> in
> >>> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of
> updated
> >>> keys
> >>> > > > > >> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>> their
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts
> Ignite
> >>> > > > > >>> transaction
> >>> > > > > >>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken
> >>> from k*x
> >>> > > > > >>> keys.
> >>> > > > > >>>>> The
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> in
> >>> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
> >>> updated
> >>> > > the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> original
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give
> any
> >>> > > > > >>>>> serializability
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we
> >>> may
> >>> > need
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>> check
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> not
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions
> of
> >>> any
> >>> > > > > >> other
> >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> end
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may
> be
> >>> > > > > >> outside
> >>> > > > > >>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for
> all
> >>> the
> >>> > > > > >> old
> >>> > > > > >>>>> values
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"?
> Every
> >>> > time
> >>> > > > > >>> you
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> change
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some
> special
> >>> > > > > >> atomic
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter
> >>> got a
> >>> > > > > >>>> values
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> with
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and
> values*"
> >>> > > > > >>> Service
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
> >>> version
> >>> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> or
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would
> it
> >>> > > > > >> match?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at
> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>> application
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following
> >>> > order:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 =>
> >>> v2]
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>> [k1
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 =>
> >>> v3]
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>> [k2
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a
> >>> unique
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all
> the
> >>> > > > > >>> services.
> >>> > > > > >>>>> If
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an
> intermediate
> >>> key
> >>> > > > > >> and
> >>> > > > > >>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized
> key
> >>> > > > > >> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >>>> must
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> be
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for
> >>> everyone.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a
> >>> > version
> >>> > > > > >>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>>> that
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is
> >>> to use
> >>> > > > > >>>> UUID.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with
> >>> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >> =
> >>> > > > > >>> x
> >>> > > > > >>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
> >>> duration
> >>> > > > > >>>> after
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field
> >>> `otx` =
> >>> > > > > >> x
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old
> >>> versions
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache
> >>> like
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it
> >>> knows
> >>> > > > > >>>> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >>>>> =
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> x
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 ->
> >>> ver1,
> >>> > > > > >> k2
> >>> > > > > >>>> ->
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into
> Orchestrator):
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx`
> =
> >>> x
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for
> >>> all
> >>> > > > > >> the
> >>> > > > > >>>> old
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> values
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
> >>> rollbacks
> >>> > > > > >>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new
> >>> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent
> >>> parts of
> >>> > > > > >> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>> graph
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only
> >>> one at
> >>> > > > > >> a
> >>> > > > > >>>>> time).
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault
> tolerance
> >>> > > > > >>> technics
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> because
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
> >>> > > > > >>>> intermediate
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in
> >>> case
> >>> > > > > >> of
> >>> > > > > >>>> any
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I
> >>> mean,
> >>> > > > > >>> we
> >>> > > > > >>>>> can
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> make
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction.
> Not
> >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
> >>> already
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing
> TX
> >>> > > > > >> state
> >>> > > > > >>>>> over
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> a
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required
> >>> still
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>> manage
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> all
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with
> clean
> >>> > > > > >>> design
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent
> >>> events.
> >>> > > > > >> And
> >>> > > > > >>>>> only
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
> >>> > > > > >>>> development
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY
> KUZNETSOV
> >>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes
> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them
> by
> >>> > > > > >>> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>> kind
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them,
> right?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is
> responsible
> >>> > > > > >>> for
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> >>> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> They
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with
> BPMN
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
> >>> > > > > >> from
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> >>> > > > > >>> which
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> >>> > > > > >>>> process)
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> which
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
> >>> > > > > >>>> *with
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> value
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
> >>> > > > > >> sends
> >>> > > > > >>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> to*
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
> >>> > > > > >>> with
> >>> > > > > >>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
> >>> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> >>> > > > > >>> wrong
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> >>> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
> >>> > > > > >>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
> >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
> >>> > > > > >>>>> rollback
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
> >>> > > > > >> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
> >>> > > > > >> make
> >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> that
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> >>> > > > > >>> make
> >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
> >>> > > > > >> changes
> >>> > > > > >>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
> >>> > > > > >> be
> >>> > > > > >>>> met
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
> >>> > > > > >> Sending
> >>> > > > > >>> TX
> >>> > > > > >>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> business
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> >>> > > > > >>> be
> >>> > > > > >>>>> done
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> >>> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
> >>> > > > > >>>>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
> >>> > > > > >>> solution?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
> >>> > > > > >>> require
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
> >>> > > > > >> performance
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
> >>> > > > > >>> on
> >>> > > > > >>>>> it.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
> >>> > > > > >>>> implememntation
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> >>> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
> >>> > > > > >>> that
> >>> > > > > >>>>> we
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> are
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> >>>
> >>> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>

[voipp]

Thanks! Do you think all test scenarios results, presented in table(in
ticket comments) , are acceptable ?

пт, 30 июн. 2017 г., 18:28 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>:

> Alex, I have commented in the ticket. Please take a look.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> *GridGain Systems*
> www.gridgain.com
>
> 2017-06-29 17:27 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>
> > I've attached HangTest. I suppose it should not hang, am i right ?
> >
> > чт, 29 июн. 2017 г. в 14:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> > > Igntrs.
> > > Im rewieving all usages of threadId of
> > > transaction.(IgniteTxAdapter#threadID). What is the point of usage
> > threadId
> > > in mvcc entry ?
> > >
> > > пн, 3 апр. 2017 г. в 9:47, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >
> > >> so what do u think on my idea?
> > >>
> > >> пт, 31 Мар 2017 г., 11:05 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >>
> > >>> sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node
> > transactions,
> > >>> but failed.
> > >>>
> > >>> пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
> > >>> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > >>>
> > >>> > so what do u think on the issue ?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > [hidden email]
> > >>> >:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
> > >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
> > >>> > > and a commit :
> > >>> > >
> > >>>
> https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
> > >>> > 436b638e5c
> > >>> > > We really need this feature
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> > [hidden email]
> > >>> > > >:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Aleksey,
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction
> > recovery
> > >>> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its
> internal
> > >>> logic.
> > >>> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you
> > want
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx
> > >>> owner
> > >>> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node
> may
> > >>> fail
> > >>> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership
> changed,
> > >>> you
> > >>> > need
> > >>> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this change,
> > >>> and it
> > >>> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add
> > any
> > >>> > tests
> > >>> > > for these cases.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with
> > >>> clear
> > >>> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason
> > >>> about
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are
> > making
> > >>> > these
> > >>> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > --AG
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > [hidden email]
> > >>> > > >:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
> > >>> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change
> > transaction
> > >>> > status
> > >>> > > > to
> > >>> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another
> thread.
> > In
> > >>> > > another
> > >>> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit
> > it.
> > >>> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to
> > >>> newer one
> > >>> > > in
> > >>> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState,
> > transactions
> > >>> > > itself
> > >>> > > > to
> > >>> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > Aleksey,
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what
> > >>> exactly
> > >>> > was
> > >>> > > > > done and how the things work.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > —
> > >>> > > > > Denis
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > [hidden email]>
> > >>> > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
> > >>> > non-single
> > >>> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread
> and
> > >>> > commit
> > >>> > > it
> > >>> > > > > in
> > >>> > > > > > another thread.
> > >>> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
> > >>> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
> > >>> > > [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > >:
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
> > >>> > > > > >>
> > >>> > > > > >> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>
> > >>> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >:
> > >>> > > > > >>
> > >>> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your
> > >>> "accumulation"
> > >>> > > > > >>> approach.These are
> > >>> > > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from
> temporary
> > >>> cache
> > >>> > > to
> > >>> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
> > >>> transactions
> > >>> > in
> > >>> > > > > >>> Service
> > >>> > > > > >>>   commiter
> > >>> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in
> > >>> memory
> > >>> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite,
> working
> > >>> with
> > >>> > > > cache
> > >>> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's
> > >>> node can
> > >>> > > > > >> evaluate
> > >>> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal
> with
> > >>> both
> > >>> > > types
> > >>> > > > > of
> > >>> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and
> > >>> non-transactional.Another
> > >>> > one
> > >>> > > > > >>> problem is
> > >>> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
> > >>> handled
> > >>> > > all
> > >>> > > > > >> this
> > >>> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
> > >>> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
> > >>> > > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
> > >>> > > transaction.
> > >>> > > > We
> > >>> > > > > >> put
> > >>> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how
> to
> > >>> solve
> > >>> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
> > >>> > > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >:
> > >>> > > > > >>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and
> millions
> > >>> of
> > >>> > > > > >> operations
> > >>> > > > > >>> on
> > >>> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math,
> plan
> > >>> > > capacity
> > >>> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > > [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
> > >>> > operations,
> > >>> > > > > >> would
> > >>> > > > > >>>> not
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
> > >>> > degradation
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the
> values
> > >>> you
> > >>> > > have
> > >>> > > > > >>> read
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can
> > be
> > >>> > > > > >> relatively
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> easily
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need
> to
> > >>> > > implement
> > >>> > > > > >> one
> > >>> > > > > >>>> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you
> > easily
> > >>> > will
> > >>> > > > end
> > >>> > > > > >>> up
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> with
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for
> > >>> your
> > >>> > > keys,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a
> > >>> thread
> > >>> > > for
> > >>> > > > > >> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a
> > >>> lock on
> > >>> > > the
> > >>> > > > > >> key
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> using
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services,
> > >>> wait
> > >>> > for
> > >>> > > > all
> > >>> > > > > >>> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the
> > >>> same
> > >>> > > thread
> > >>> > > > > >>>> while
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all
> > the
> > >>> > > Ignite
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic
> > >>> here to
> > >>> > > be
> > >>> > > > > >>> able
> > >>> > > > > >>>> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach
> > >>> until you
> > >>> > > > > >> have a
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no
> > one
> > >>> > > altered
> > >>> > > > > >>> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other
> > >>> dependent
> > >>> > > keys.
> > >>> > > > > >>> How
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> could
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of
> > course)
> > >>> ?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A
> > >>> introduce
> > >>> > > > > >> changes?
> > >>> > > > > >>>> So
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> no
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this
> key-value?(sort
> > >>> of
> > >>> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such
> approach ?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but
> only
> > >>> > generate
> > >>> > > > > >>> new
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the
> > same
> > >>> > cache
> > >>> > > > > >> +
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> remember
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the
> transaction
> > >>> in
> > >>> > some
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache
> > >>> contents by
> > >>> > > > > >> each
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some
> > >>> separate
> > >>> > > > > >>> atomic
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > in
> > >>> some
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of
> > updated
> > >>> keys
> > >>> > > > > >> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> their
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts
> > Ignite
> > >>> > > > > >>> transaction
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken
> > >>> from k*x
> > >>> > > > > >>> keys.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> The
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > in
> > >>> some
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
> > >>> updated
> > >>> > > the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> original
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give
> > any
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> serializability
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here
> we
> > >>> may
> > >>> > need
> > >>> > > > > >> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> check
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> not
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions
> > of
> > >>> any
> > >>> > > > > >> other
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> end
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup
> (may
> > be
> > >>> > > > > >> outside
> > >>> > > > > >>> of
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for
> > all
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > > >> old
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> values
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"?
> > Every
> > >>> > time
> > >>> > > > > >>> you
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> change
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some
> > special
> > >>> > > > > >> atomic
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service
> commiter
> > >>> got a
> > >>> > > > > >>>> values
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> with
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and
> > values*"
> > >>> > > > > >>> Service
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
> > >>> version
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> or
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would
> > it
> > >>> > > > > >> match?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at
> > the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> application
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the
> following
> > >>> > order:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2
> =>
> > >>> v2]
> > >>> > > > > >> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [k1
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3
> =>
> > >>> v3]
> > >>> > > > > >> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>> [k2
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a
> > >>> unique
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all
> > the
> > >>> > > > > >>> services.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> If
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an
> > intermediate
> > >>> key
> > >>> > > > > >> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>> is
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized
> > key
> > >>> > > > > >> `otx`
> > >>> > > > > >>>> must
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> be
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for
> > >>> everyone.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is
> a
> > >>> > version
> > >>> > > > > >>> of
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> that
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way
> is
> > >>> to use
> > >>> > > > > >>>> UUID.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction
> with
> > >>> `otx`
> > >>> > > > > >> =
> > >>> > > > > >>> x
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
> > >>> duration
> > >>> > > > > >>>> after
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field
> > >>> `otx` =
> > >>> > > > > >> x
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old
> > >>> versions
> > >>> > > > > >> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic
> cache
> > >>> like
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because
> it
> > >>> knows
> > >>> > > > > >>>> `otx`
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> =
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> x
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1
> ->
> > >>> ver1,
> > >>> > > > > >> k2
> > >>> > > > > >>>> ->
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into
> > Orchestrator):
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for
> `otx`
> > =
> > >>> x
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions
> for
> > >>> all
> > >>> > > > > >> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>> old
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> values
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
> > >>> rollbacks
> > >>> > > > > >>> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new
> > >>> `otx`
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent
> > >>> parts of
> > >>> > > > > >> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> graph
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run
> only
> > >>> one at
> > >>> > > > > >> a
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> time).
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault
> > tolerance
> > >>> > > > > >>> technics
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> because
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all
> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>> intermediate
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus
> in
> > >>> case
> > >>> > > > > >> of
> > >>> > > > > >>>> any
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business
> task. I
> > >>> mean,
> > >>> > > > > >>> we
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> can
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> make
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction.
> > Not
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
> > >>> already
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing
> > TX
> > >>> > > > > >> state
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> over
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> a
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required
> > >>> still
> > >>> > > > > >> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> manage
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> all
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with
> > clean
> > >>> > > > > >>> design
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent
> > >>> events.
> > >>> > > > > >> And
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> only
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move
> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>> development
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY
> > KUZNETSOV
> > >>> <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes
> > some
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them
> > by
> > >>> > > > > >>> some
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> kind
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> of
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them,
> > right?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is
> > responsible
> > >>> > > > > >>> for
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> > >>> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> They
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with
> > BPMN
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
> > >>> > > > > >> from
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> KUZNETSOV <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> > >>> > > > > >>> which
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> > >>> > > > > >>>> process)
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> which
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable
> A
> > >>> > > > > >>>> *with
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> value
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
> > >>> > > > > >> sends
> > >>> > > > > >>>> it
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> to*
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some
> logic
> > >>> > > > > >>> with
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> it
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
> > >>> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> in
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi
> Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> > >>> > > > > >>> wrong
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > >>> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
> > >>> > > > > >>> <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> rollback
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
> > >>> > > > > >> some
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
> > >>> > > > > >> make
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> > >>> > > > > >>> make
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
> > >>> > > > > >> changes
> > >>> > > > > >>> in
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
> > >>> > > > > >> be
> > >>> > > > > >>>> met
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
> > >>> > > > > >> Sending
> > >>> > > > > >>> TX
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> business
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> > >>> > > > > >>> be
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> done
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > >>> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
> > >>> > > > > >>> solution?
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> it
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
> > >>> > > > > >>> require
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
> > >>> > > > > >> performance
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
> > >>> > > > > >>> on
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> it.
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
> > >>> > > > > >>>> implememntation
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> > >>> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
> > >>> > > > > >>> that
> > >>> > > > > >>>>> we
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> are
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> >
>

--

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

[voipp]

Yakov, I have couple of questions regarding tests proposal.Thx

пт, 30 июн. 2017 г. в 19:17, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:

> Thanks! Do you think all test scenarios results, presented in table(in
> ticket comments) , are acceptable ?
>
> пт, 30 июн. 2017 г., 18:28 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Alex, I have commented in the ticket. Please take a look.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> --
>> Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>> *GridGain Systems*
>> www.gridgain.com
>>
>> 2017-06-29 17:27 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > I've attached HangTest. I suppose it should not hang, am i right ?
>> >
>> > чт, 29 июн. 2017 г. в 14:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > > Igntrs.
>> > > Im rewieving all usages of threadId of
>> > > transaction.(IgniteTxAdapter#threadID). What is the point of usage
>> > threadId
>> > > in mvcc entry ?
>> > >
>> > > пн, 3 апр. 2017 г. в 9:47, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> > >
>> > >> so what do u think on my idea?
>> > >>
>> > >> пт, 31 Мар 2017 г., 11:05 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> > >>
>> > >>> sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node
>> > transactions,
>> > >>> but failed.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > >>> [hidden email]>:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
>> > >>> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > so what do u think on the issue ?
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > >>> >:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
>> > >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
>> > >>> > > and a commit :
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>>
>> https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
>> > >>> > 436b638e5c
>> > >>> > > We really need this feature
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > >>> > [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > >:
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > Aleksey,
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction
>> > recovery
>> > >>> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its
>> internal
>> > >>> logic.
>> > >>> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you
>> > want
>> > >>> to
>> > >>> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx
>> > >>> owner
>> > >>> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node
>> may
>> > >>> fail
>> > >>> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership
>> changed,
>> > >>> you
>> > >>> > need
>> > >>> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this
>> change,
>> > >>> and it
>> > >>> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not
>> add
>> > any
>> > >>> > tests
>> > >>> > > for these cases.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with
>> > >>> clear
>> > >>> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason
>> > >>> about
>> > >>> > the
>> > >>> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are
>> > making
>> > >>> > these
>> > >>> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > --AG
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> [hidden email]>:
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > >:
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
>> > >>> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change
>> > transaction
>> > >>> > status
>> > >>> > > > to
>> > >>> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another
>> thread.
>> > In
>> > >>> > > another
>> > >>> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit
>> > it.
>> > >>> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to
>> > >>> newer one
>> > >>> > > in
>> > >>> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState,
>> > transactions
>> > >>> > > itself
>> > >>> > > > to
>> > >>> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <[hidden email]
>> >:
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > Aleksey,
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what
>> > >>> exactly
>> > >>> > was
>> > >>> > > > > done and how the things work.
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > —
>> > >>> > > > > Denis
>> > >>> > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > [hidden email]>
>> > >>> > > > > wrote:
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
>> > >>> > non-single
>> > >>> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread
>> and
>> > >>> > commit
>> > >>> > > it
>> > >>> > > > > in
>> > >>> > > > > > another thread.
>> > >>> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
>> > >>> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > >:
>> > >>> > > > > >
>> > >>> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
>> > >>> > > > > >>
>> > >>> > > > > >> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>
>> > >>> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >:
>> > >>> > > > > >>
>> > >>> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your
>> > >>> "accumulation"
>> > >>> > > > > >>> approach.These are
>> > >>> > > > > >>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from
>> temporary
>> > >>> cache
>> > >>> > > to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
>> > >>> transactions
>> > >>> > in
>> > >>> > > > > >>> Service
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   commiter
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in
>> > >>> memory
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite,
>> working
>> > >>> with
>> > >>> > > > cache
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's
>> > >>> node can
>> > >>> > > > > >> evaluate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal
>> with
>> > >>> both
>> > >>> > > types
>> > >>> > > > > of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and
>> > >>> non-transactional.Another
>> > >>> > one
>> > >>> > > > > >>> problem is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
>> > >>> handled
>> > >>> > > all
>> > >>> > > > > >> this
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
>> > >>> > > transaction.
>> > >>> > > > We
>> > >>> > > > > >> put
>> > >>> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how
>> to
>> > >>> solve
>> > >>> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
>> > >>> > > > > >>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and
>> millions
>> > >>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >> operations
>> > >>> > > > > >>> on
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math,
>> plan
>> > >>> > > capacity
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
>> > >>> > operations,
>> > >>> > > > > >> would
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> not
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
>> > >>> > degradation
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the
>> values
>> > >>> you
>> > >>> > > have
>> > >>> > > > > >>> read
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic
>> can
>> > be
>> > >>> > > > > >> relatively
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> easily
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need
>> to
>> > >>> > > implement
>> > >>> > > > > >> one
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you
>> > easily
>> > >>> > will
>> > >>> > > > end
>> > >>> > > > > >>> up
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> with
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates
>> for
>> > >>> your
>> > >>> > > keys,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start
>> a
>> > >>> thread
>> > >>> > > for
>> > >>> > > > > >> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a
>> > >>> lock on
>> > >>> > > the
>> > >>> > > > > >> key
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> using
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any
>> Services,
>> > >>> wait
>> > >>> > for
>> > >>> > > > all
>> > >>> > > > > >>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in
>> the
>> > >>> same
>> > >>> > > thread
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> while
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that
>> all
>> > the
>> > >>> > > Ignite
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be
>> optimistic
>> > >>> here to
>> > >>> > > be
>> > >>> > > > > >>> able
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach
>> > >>> until you
>> > >>> > > > > >> have a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure
>> no
>> > one
>> > >>> > > altered
>> > >>> > > > > >>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other
>> > >>> dependent
>> > >>> > > keys.
>> > >>> > > > > >>> How
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> could
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of
>> > course)
>> > >>> ?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A
>> > >>> introduce
>> > >>> > > > > >> changes?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> So
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> no
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this
>> key-value?(sort
>> > >>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such
>> approach ?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but
>> only
>> > >>> > generate
>> > >>> > > > > >>> new
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the
>> > same
>> > >>> > cache
>> > >>> > > > > >> +
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> remember
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the
>> transaction
>> > >>> in
>> > >>> > some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache
>> > >>> contents by
>> > >>> > > > > >> each
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some
>> > >>> separate
>> > >>> > > > > >>> atomic
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 ->
>> ver3)]
>> > in
>> > >>> some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of
>> > updated
>> > >>> keys
>> > >>> > > > > >> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> their
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts
>> > Ignite
>> > >>> > > > > >>> transaction
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken
>> > >>> from k*x
>> > >>> > > > > >>> keys.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> The
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 ->
>> ver3)]
>> > in
>> > >>> some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
>> > >>> updated
>> > >>> > > the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> original
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give
>> > any
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> serializability
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here
>> we
>> > >>> may
>> > >>> > need
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> check
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> not
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also
>> versions
>> > of
>> > >>> any
>> > >>> > > > > >> other
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> end
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup
>> (may
>> > be
>> > >>> > > > > >> outside
>> > >>> > > > > >>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final
>> state:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for
>> > all
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >> old
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> values
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"?
>> > Every
>> > >>> > time
>> > >>> > > > > >>> you
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> change
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some
>> > special
>> > >>> > > > > >> atomic
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service
>> commiter
>> > >>> got a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> values
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> with
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and
>> > values*"
>> > >>> > > > > >>> Service
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
>> > >>> version
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> or
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions
>> would
>> > it
>> > >>> > > > > >> match?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement
>> at
>> > the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> application
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the
>> following
>> > >>> > order:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,
>>  k2 =>
>> > >>> v2]
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> [k1
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3
>> =>
>> > >>> v3]
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> [k2
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is
>> a
>> > >>> unique
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all
>> > the
>> > >>> > > > > >>> services.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> If
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an
>> > intermediate
>> > >>> key
>> > >>> > > > > >> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the
>> finalized
>> > key
>> > >>> > > > > >> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> must
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for
>> > >>> everyone.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which
>> is a
>> > >>> > version
>> > >>> > > > > >>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> that
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way
>> is
>> > >>> to use
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> UUID.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction
>> with
>> > >>> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >> =
>> > >>> > > > > >>> x
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
>> > >>> duration
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> after
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field
>> > >>> `otx` =
>> > >>> > > > > >> x
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old
>> > >>> versions
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic
>> cache
>> > >>> like
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because
>> it
>> > >>> knows
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> =
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> x
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1
>> ->
>> > >>> ver1,
>> > >>> > > > > >> k2
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> ->
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into
>> > Orchestrator):
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for
>> `otx`
>> > =
>> > >>> x
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions
>> for
>> > >>> all
>> > >>> > > > > >> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> old
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> values
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
>> > >>> rollbacks
>> > >>> > > > > >>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with
>> new
>> > >>> `otx`
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent
>> > >>> parts of
>> > >>> > > > > >> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> graph
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run
>> only
>> > >>> one at
>> > >>> > > > > >> a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> time).
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault
>> > tolerance
>> > >>> > > > > >>> technics
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> because
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all
>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> intermediate
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL,
>> thus in
>> > >>> case
>> > >>> > > > > >> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> any
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business
>> task. I
>> > >>> mean,
>> > >>> > > > > >>> we
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> can
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> make
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed
>> transaction.
>> > Not
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
>> > >>> already
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply
>> passing
>> > TX
>> > >>> > > > > >> state
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> over
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required
>> > >>> still
>> > >>> > > > > >> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> manage
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> all
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with
>> > clean
>> > >>> > > > > >>> design
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent
>> > >>> events.
>> > >>> > > > > >> And
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> only
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move
>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> development
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY
>> > KUZNETSOV
>> > >>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes
>> > some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls
>> them
>> > by
>> > >>> > > > > >>> some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> kind
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> of
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them,
>> > right?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV
>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is
>> > responsible
>> > >>> > > > > >>> for
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> They
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with
>> > BPMN
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
>> > >>> > > > > >> from
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> KUZNETSOV <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
>> > >>> > > > > >>> which
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> process)
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> which
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates
>> *variable A
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> *with
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> value
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
>> > >>> > > > > >> sends
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> to*
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some
>> logic
>> > >>> > > > > >>> with
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi
>> Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
>> > >>> > > > > >>> wrong
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business
>> case?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > >>> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
>> > >>> > > > > >>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> rollback
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
>> > >>> > > > > >> some
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
>> > >>> > > > > >> make
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> that
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
>> > >>> > > > > >>> make
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
>> > >>> > > > > >> changes
>> > >>> > > > > >>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
>> > >>> > > > > >> be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> met
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
>> > >>> > > > > >> Sending
>> > >>> > > > > >>> TX
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> business
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
>> > >>> > > > > >>> be
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> done
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
>> > >>> > > > > >>> solution?
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> it
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
>> > >>> > > > > >>> require
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
>> > >>> > > > > >> performance
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
>> > >>> > > > > >>> on
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> it.
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
>> > >>> > > > > >>>> implememntation
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
>> > >>> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
>> > >>> > > > > >>> that
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>> we
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>> are
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>> > >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --
>> >
>> > *Best Regards,*
>> >
>> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>> >
>>
> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>

--

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*