To add some further detail: There are two processes interacting with the cache. One process is writing data into the cache, while the second process is extracting data from the cache using a continuous query. The process that is the reader of the data is throwing the exception.
Increasing the cache size further to 256 Mb resolves the problem for this data set, however we have data sets more than 100 times this size which we will be processing. Thanks, Raymond. On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 12:10 PM Raymond Wilson <raymond_wil...@trimble.com> wrote: > I've been having a sporadic issue with the Ignite 2.7.5 JVM halting due to > out of memory error related to a cache with persistence enabled > > I just upgraded to the C#.Net, Ignite 2.7.6 client to pick up support for > C# affinity functions and now have this issue appearing regularly while > adding around 400Mb of data into the cache which is configured to have > 128Mb of memory (this was 64Mb but I increased it to see if the failure > would resolve. > > The error I get is: > > 2020-03-05 11:58:57,568 [542] ERR [MutableCacheComputeServer] JVM will be > halted immediately due to the failure: [failureCtx=FailureContext > [type=CRITICAL_ERROR, err=class o.a.i.i.mem.IgniteOutOfMemoryException: > Failed to find a page for eviction [segmentCapacity=1700, loaded=676, > maxDirtyPages=507, dirtyPages=675, cpPages=0, pinnedInSegment=2, > failedToPrepare=675] > Out of memory in data region [name=TAGFileBufferQueue, initSize=128.0 MiB, > maxSize=128.0 MiB, persistenceEnabled=true] Try the following: > ^-- Increase maximum off-heap memory size > (DataRegionConfiguration.maxSize) > ^-- Enable Ignite persistence > (DataRegionConfiguration.persistenceEnabled) > ^-- Enable eviction or expiration policies]] > > I'm not running an eviction policy as I thought this was not required for > caches with persistence enabled. > > I'm surprised by this behaviour as I expected the persistence mechanism to > handle it. The error relating to failure to find a page for eviction > suggest the persistence mechanism has fallen behind. If this is the case, > this seems like an unfriendly failure mode. > > Thanks, > Raymond. > > >
