Cos, IMO, If we really want to get a valuable feedback from a wider audience then in addition to the new version the audience has to be given both a high-level and deep documentation, proper messaging, etc. It will take time to soak in the information and a week might not be enough in general.
This is why I would not make the voting process longer but rather give the release and all the materials to our users and look forward to the feedback. Basing on the feedback we can always release a next version whenever is needed. — Denis > On Jul 10, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > > That's an interesting statement to make, considering the a PMC is > legally responsible for the release they are making and voting for. > What I believe it would achieve is to give a wider group of our users > a chance to get and install the new version and try some of the most > prominent features, while giving the feedback. Even if expressed in > the form of non-binding votes. > -- > Take care, > Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik > 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 > > Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, > and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author > might be affiliated with at the moment of writing. > > > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: >> Cos, >> >> I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache >> [VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build procedure, >> release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more >> time than usual to verify this release. >> >> D. >> >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team. >>> >>> And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of the >>> changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd >>> suggest >>> we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the bits. >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Cos >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: >>>> Cos, >>>> >>>> I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra. AFAIK >>>> there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end >>> 2.0 >>>> release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more information >>> on >>>> the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Vyacheslav, Denis, >>>>> >>>>> 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what is >>>>> more important - persistent store has been merged only several days >>> ago. We >>>>> need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline: >>>>> 16 July - code freeze >>>>> 17-21 July - QA >>>>> 21-24 July - vote and release >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code >>>>>> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite >>>>>> helpful (thanks Denis!). >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so >>>>>> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat >>>>>> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant >>>>>> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working >>>>>> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be caused >>>>>> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the >>>>>> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we >>>>>> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> Cos >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Take care, >>>>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik >>>>>> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 >>>>>> >>>>>> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, >>>>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author >>>>>> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak" >>> branch >>>>>> was >>>>>>> created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date >>> for >>>>>> 2.1 >>>>>>> is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize >>> the >>>>>>> release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1 >>>>>> release to >>>>>>> this branch. The rest commits should go to master. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vladimir. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < >>> voze...@gridgain.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Denis, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if >>> nobody >>>>>>>> minds. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vladimir. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout >>> out all >>>>>>>>> the changes appeared in 2.1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light >>>>>> [1] to >>>>>>>>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to >>>>>> dive >>>>>>>>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make it >>>>>>>>> available in the nearest release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July >>>>>> 15th). Is >>>>>>>>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager >>> creating >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ >>>>>>>>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html >>>>>>>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+ >>>>>> Ignite+2.0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko < >>>>>>>>> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE >>>>>> command >>>>>>>>>> - minor comments left, ETA is Friday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread - >>> in >>>>>>>>>> progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of >>>>>> tests. >>>>>>>>>> ETA is Friday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE >>> command - >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to >>> 2.2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Alex >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov < >>>>>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>>> 1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up >>> grid >>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> persistence is enabled >>>>>>>>>>> It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363. >>>>>>>>>>> Working on it, ETA - tomorrow. >>>>>>>>>>> 2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics >>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>>>> improvements >>>>>>>>>>> A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only >>>>>> today >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> requires several days to implement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov < >>> tled...@gridgain.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver >>> will >>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2. >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are >>> implemented >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>>>>>> for review; >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and >>> ready >>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> review; >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable / >>> writable >>>>>>>>> cursors >>>>>>>>>>>> will not be supported in 2.1. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June >>> 2), >>>>>> Could >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> please share current status of your major features? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda < >>> dma...@apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1 >>> release >>>>>> then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release: ~ June 13 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support >>>>>> Ignite’s >>>>>>>>> CREATE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to >>> make it >>>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn < >>>>>> ptupit...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer >>> deployment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (IGNITE-2492) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate >>> support in >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can >>>>>> reschedule >>>>>>>>> it for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later versions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you >>> should >>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't >>> see >>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by-page >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression will solve it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daradu...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and >>> indexing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or >>> fields >>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for >>>>>> string >>>>>>>>> fileds. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as >>> applied >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by-page >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daradu...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB) >>> to >>>>>> store >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of >>>>>> incriasing >>>>>>>>> of CPU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and >>>>>>>>> querying. How >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda < >>> dma...@apache.org >>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1 >>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing >>> efforts >>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a >>>>>> transactional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases >>>>>>>>> (database >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be >>> supported as >>>>>>>>> usual, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include >>>>>> essential >>>>>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC >>> support, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite >>> as a >>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to >>> Ignite >>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTAP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing >>> our >>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release >>> this >>>>>> way: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is >>>>>>>>> accepted by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the >>>>>> store >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CREATE & DROP table commands: >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Collocation based routing of SQL queries: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jir >>> a/browse/IGNITE-4509 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. C++: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Linear regression algorithms: >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts, >>> ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Taras Ledkov >>>>>>>>>>>> Mail-To: tled...@gridgain.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>
