Search Results

Search found 7 results on 1 pages for 'hazelcast'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Hazelcast Distributed Executor Service KeyOwner

    - by János Veres
    I have problem understanding the concept of Hazelcast Distributed Execution. It is said to be able to perform the execution on the owner instance of a specific key. From Documentation: <T> Future<T> submitToKeyOwner(Callable<T> task, Object key) Submits task to owner of the specified key and returns a Future representing that task. Parameters: task - task key - key Returns: a Future representing pending completion of the task I believe that I'm not alone to have a cluster built with multiple maps which might actually use the same key for different purposes, holding different objects (e.g. something along the following setup): IMap<String, ObjectTypeA> firstMap = HazelcastInstance.getMap("firstMap"); IMap<String, ObjectTypeA_AppendixClass> secondMap = HazelcastInstance.getMap("secondMap"); To me it seems quite confusing what documentation says about the owner of a key. My real frustration is that I don't know WHICH - in which map - key does it refer to? The documentation also gives a "demo" of this approach: import com.hazelcast.core.Member; import com.hazelcast.core.Hazelcast; import com.hazelcast.core.IExecutorService; import java.util.concurrent.Callable; import java.util.concurrent.Future; import java.util.Set; import com.hazelcast.config.Config; public void echoOnTheMemberOwningTheKey(String input, Object key) throws Exception { Callable<String> task = new Echo(input); HazelcastInstance hz = Hazelcast.newHazelcastInstance(); IExecutorService executorService = hz.getExecutorService("default"); Future<String> future = executorService.submitToKeyOwner(task, key); String echoResult = future.get(); } Here's a link to the documentation site: Hazelcast MultiHTML Documentation 3.0 - Distributed Execution Did any of you guys figure out in the past what key does it want?

    Read the article

  • [Java] Cluster Shared Cache

    - by GuiSim
    Hi everyone. I am searching for a java framework that would allow me to share a cache between multiple JVMs. What I would need is something like Hazelcast but without the "distributed" part. I want to be able to add an item in the cache and have it automatically synced to the other "group member" cache. If possible, I'd like the cache to be sync'd via a reliable multicast (or something similar). I've looked at Shoal but sadly the "Distributed State Cache" seems like an insufficient implementation for my needs. I've looked at JBoss Cache but it seems a little overkill for what I need to do. I've looked at JGroups, which seems to be the most promising tool for what I need to do. Does anyone have experiences with JGroups ? Preferably if it was used as a shared cache ? Any other suggestions ? Thanks ! EDIT : We're starting tests to help us decide between Hazelcast and Infinispan, I'll accept an answer soon. EDIT : Due to a sudden requirements changes, we don't need a distributed map anymore. We'll be using JGroups for a low level signaling framework. Thanks everyone for you help.

    Read the article

  • Java - System design with distributed Queues and Locks

    - by sunny
    Looking for inputs to evaluate a design for a system (java) which would have a distributed queue serving several (but not too many) nodes. These nodes would process objects present in the distributed queue and on occasion require a distributed lock across the cluster on an arbitrary (distributed) data structures. These (distributed) data structures could potentially lie in a distributed cache. Eliminating Terracotta (DSO),Hazelcast and Akka what could be alternative choices. Currently considering zookeeper as a distributed locking mechanism. Since the recommendation of a znode is not to exceed the 1M size , the understanding is that zookeeper should not be used a distributed queue. And also from Netflix curator tech note 4. So should a distributed cache, say like memcached, or redis be used to emulate a distributed queue ? i.e. The distributed queue will be stored in the caches and will be locked cluster-wide via zookeeper. Are there potential pitfalls with this high-level approach. The objects don't need to be taken off the queue. The object will pass through a lifecycle which will determine its removal from the queue. There would be about 10k+ objects in a queue at a given time changing states and any node could service one stage of the object's lifecycle. (Although not strictly necessary .. i.e. one node could serve the entire lifecycle if that is more efficient.) Any suggestions/alternatives ? sidenote: new to zookeeper ; redis etc.

    Read the article

  • Logic for controll concurrent in block or funciton

    - by Hlex
    1)My environment is web application, I accept large request from selvets. A) In some block/method i want to control concurrent to not greater than 5 B) if there are 5 request in that block , the new coming must wait up to 60 second then throws error C) if there are sleep/waiting request most then 30,throws error How I do this? 2)(Optional Question) from above I have to distribute control logic to all clustered host. I plan to use hazelcast to share the control logic (e.g. current counter) I see they provide BlockingQueue & ExectorService but I have no idea how to use in my case. Please recommend if you have idea.

    Read the article

  • Logic for controll concurrent in block/method

    - by Hlex
    1)My environment is web application, I develop servlet to receive request. A) In some block/method i want to control concurrent to not greater than 5 B) if there are 5 request in that block , the new coming must wait up to 60 second then throws error C) if there are sleep/waiting request more then 30, the 31th request will be throwed an error How I do this? 2)(Optional Question) from above I have to distribute control logic to all clustered host. I plan to use hazelcast to share the control logic (e.g. current counter) I see they provide BlockingQueue & ExectorService but I have no idea how to use in my case. Please recommend if you have idea.

    Read the article

  • High performance distributed asynchronous RPC in java

    - by unludo
    I would like to do RPC to a list of clients with the following requirements: the server does not know the clients (implies a kind of broker?) and the cleints do not know the server there may be several clients - they share the load to treat the RPC The RPC is asynchronous very fast (round-trip < 1ms) optional : offers a fail-over mechanism. It can be done with underlying tools which are not really intended for that (Hazelcast is an example). What would you use for such requirements? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What's a good Java-based Master-Slave communication mechanism?

    - by plecong
    I'm creating a Java application that requires master-slave communication between JVMs, possibly residing on the same physical machine. There will be a "master" server running inside a JEE application server (i.e. JBoss) that will have "slave" clients connect to it and dynamically register itself for communication (that is the master will not know the IP addresses/ports of the slaves so cannot be configured in advance). The master server acts as a controller that will dole work out to the slaves and the slaves will periodically respond with notifications, so there would be bi-directional communication. I was originally thinking of RPC-based systems where each side would be a server, but it could get complicated, so I'd prefer a mechanism where there's an open socket and they talk back and forth. I'm looking for a communication mechanism that would be low-latency where the messages would be mostly primitive types, so no serious serialization is necessary. Here's what I've looked at: RMI JMS: Built-in to Java, the "slave" clients would connect to the existing ConnectionFactory in the application server. JAX-WS/RS: Both master and slave would be servers exposing an RPC interface for bi-directional communication. JGroups/Hazelcast: Use shared distributed data structures to facilitate communication. Memcached/MongoDB: Use these as "queues" to facilitate communication, though the clients would have to poll so there would be some latency. Thrift: This does seem to keep a persistent connection, but not sure how to integrate/embed a Thrift server into JBoss WebSocket/Raw Socket: This would work, but require a lot more custom code than I'd like. Is there any technology I'm missing? Edit: Also looked at: JMX: Have the client connect to JBoss' JMX server and receive JMX notifications for bidirectional comms.

    Read the article

1