[Near-Cache] LocalUpdatePolicy for cluster members

[belhassin...@gmail.com]

Hello,

 

Do you confirm that the near-cache LocalUpdatePolicy configuration is not taken into account for cluster members, and specifically for lite members?

 

I find that its use has all its meaning for the lite member :  LocalUpdatePolicy.CACHE policy makes the near-cache more efficient.

 

What do you think ? Could it increase the risk of reading stale data?

 

Thank you in advance for your answer

Houssem.

[Ahmet Mircik]

Hi, 

I assume you are using near cache for IMap but IMap near cache doesn't support cache on update policy. Only Hazelcast client-side JCache implementation supports it.

The increase of stale value read possibility depends on the usage (think that data is only updated by near-cached end), but using invalidation on change strategy is less risky 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hazelcast" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hazelcast+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to haze...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/hazelcast.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hazelcast/e00ae24a-40bb-4c89-b568-c04407b9ffac%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Houssem BELHASSINE]

Hi

Thank you for your response.

Indeed, we use it for a near-cache of an IMap

Do not you think that it is an interesting feature that one can have it also for the IMap?

[Ahmet Mircik]

Right, it may be beneficial. 

Can you please create an issue for this? https://github.com/hazelcast/hazelcast/issues

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hazelcast/4bf5c77d-6a4e-495f-b6f9-0cc0ccb9e02d%40googlegroups.com.