Igniters, I've prepared release notes for the 2.9 release [1]. Can anyone review it, please?
[1]: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8273 вт, 22 сент. 2020 г. в 09:39, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > Guys, > > I've filled the ticket with reproducer [1] for the discovery bug. This bug > caused by [2] ticket. We discussed with Vladimir Steshin privately and > decided to revert this ticket. I will do it today (after TC bot visa) if > there are no objections. > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13465 > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13134 > > пн, 21 сент. 2020 г. в 11:08, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > >> Guys, >> >> During internal testing, we've found a critical bug with >> discovery (cluster falls apart if two nodes segmented sequentially). This >> problem is not reproduced in 2.8.1. I think we should fix it >> before release. Under investigation now. I'll let you know when we get >> something. >> >> чт, 17 сент. 2020 г. в 00:51, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>: >> >>> > So what do you think? Should we proceed with a 'hacked' version of the >>> message factory in 2.9 and go for the runtime message generation in later >>> release, or keep the code clean and fix the regression in the next releases? >>> > Andrey, can you take a look at my change? I think it is fairly >>> straightforward and does not change the semantics, just skips the factory >>> closures for certain messages. >>> >>> IMHO 2.5% isn't too much especially because it isn't actual for all >>> workloads (I didn't get any significant drops during benchmarking). So >>> I prefer the runtime generation in later releases. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:41 PM Alexey Goncharuk >>> <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Alexey, Andrey, Igniters, >>> > >>> > So what do you think? Should we proceed with a 'hacked' version of the >>> message factory in 2.9 and go for the runtime message generation in later >>> release, or keep the code clean and fix the regression in the next releases? >>> > Andrey, can you take a look at my change? I think it is fairly >>> straightforward and does not change the semantics, just skips the factory >>> closures for certain messages. >>> > >>> > Personally, I would prefer fixing the regression given that we also >>> introduced tracing in this release. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > пт, 11 сент. 2020 г. в 12:09, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: >>> >> >>> >> Alexey, >>> >> >>> >> We've benchmarked by yardstick commits 130376741bf vs ed52559eb95 and >>> the performance of ed52559eb95 is better for about 2.5% on average on our >>> environment (about the same results we got benchmarking 65c30ec6 vs >>> 0606f03d). We've made 24 runs for each commit of >>> IgnitePutTxImplicitBenchmark (we got maximum drop for 2.9 on this >>> benchmark), 200 seconds warmup, 300 seconds benchmark, 6 servers, 5 clients >>> 50 threads each. Yardstick results for this configuration: >>> >> Commit 130376741bf: avg TPS=164096, avg latency=9173464 ns >>> >> Commit ed52559eb95: avg TPS=168283, avg latency=8945908 ns >>> >> >>> >> пт, 11 сент. 2020 г. в 09:51, Artem Budnikov < >>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> >>> >>> I posted an instruction on how to publish the docs on >>> ignite.apache.org/docs [1]. When you finish with Ignite 2.9, you can >>> update the docs by following the instruction. Unfortunately, I won't be >>> able to spend any time on this project any longer. You can send your pull >>> requests and questions about the documentation to Denis Magda. >>> >>> >>> >>> -Artem >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] : >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Document >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:45 PM Alexey Goncharuk < >>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Alexey, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I've tried to play with message factories locally, but >>> unfortunately, I >>> >>>> cannot spot the difference between old and new implementation in >>> >>>> distributed benchmarks. I pushed an implementation of >>> MessageFactoryImpl >>> >>>> with the old switch statement to the ignite-2.9-revert-12568 branch >>> >>>> (discussed this with Andrey Gura, the change should be compatible >>> with the >>> >>>> new metrics as we still use the register() mechanics). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Can you check if this change makes any difference performance-wise >>> in your >>> >>>> environment? If yes, we can go with runtime code generation in the >>> long >>> >>>> term: register classes and generate a dynamic message factory with >>> a switch >>> >>>> statement once all messages are registered (not in 2.9 though, >>> obviously). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ср, 9 сент. 2020 г. в 14:53, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>> >: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > Hello guys, >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > I've tried to optimize tracing implementation (ticket [1]), it >>> reduced the >>> >>>> > drop, but not completely removed it. >>> >>>> > Ivan Rakov, Alexander Lapin, can you please review the patch? >>> >>>> > Ivan Artiukhov, can you please benchmark the patch [2] against >>> 2.8.1 >>> >>>> > release on your environment? >>> >>>> > With this patch on our environment, it's about a 3% drop left, >>> it's close >>> >>>> > to measurement error and I think such a drop is not a >>> showstopper. Guys, >>> >>>> > WDYT? >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > Also, I found that compatibility is broken for JDBC thin driver >>> between 2.8 >>> >>>> > and 2.9 versions (ticket [3]). I think it's a blocker and should >>> be >>> >>>> > fixed in 2.9. I've prepared the patch. >>> >>>> > Taras Ledkov, can you please review this patch? >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > And one more ticket I propose to include into 2.9 [4] (NIO message >>> >>>> > send problem in some circumstances). I will cherry-pick it if >>> there is no >>> >>>> > objection. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13411 >>> >>>> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8223 >>> >>>> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13414 >>> >>>> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13361 >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 14:14, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > > Alexey, >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > I propose to include [1] issue to the 2.9 release. Since this >>> issue is >>> >>>> > > related to the new master key change functionality which >>> haven't been >>> >>>> > > released yet I think it will be safe to cherry-pick commit to >>> the >>> >>>> > > release branch. >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13390 >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 12:13, Nikolay Izhikov < >>> nizhi...@apache.org> >>> >>>> > wrote: >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > Hello, Igniters. >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > Alexey, please, include one more Python thin client fix [1] >>> into the >>> >>>> > 2.9 >>> >>>> > > release >>> >>>> > > > It fixes kinda major issue - "Python client returns fields in >>> wrong >>> >>>> > > order since the 2 row when fields_count>10" >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12809 >>> >>>> > > > [2] >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/38025ee4167f05eaa2d6a2c5c2ab70c83a462cfc >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > > 31 авг. 2020 г., в 19:23, Alexey Goncharuk < >>> >>>> > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> > > написал(а): >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > Alexey, thanks, got it. I am not sure we can optimize >>> anything out of >>> >>>> > > the >>> >>>> > > > > message factory with suppliers (at least I have no ideas >>> right now), >>> >>>> > so >>> >>>> > > > > most likely the only move here is to switch back to the >>> switch >>> >>>> > approach >>> >>>> > > > > somehow preserving the metrics part. Probably, inlining the >>> Ignite >>> >>>> > > messages >>> >>>> > > > > to the IgniteMessageFactoryImpl should do the trick. Let me >>> explore >>> >>>> > the >>> >>>> > > > > code a bit. >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > P.S. I am surprised by the impact this part makes for the >>> >>>> > performance. >>> >>>> > > > > Message creation is indeed on the hot path, but a single >>> virtual call >>> >>>> > > > > should not make that much of a difference given the amount >>> of other >>> >>>> > > work >>> >>>> > > > > happening during the message processing. >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 18:33, Alex Plehanov < >>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>> >>>> > >: >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > >> Alexey, sorry, I wrongly interpreted our benchmark results. >>> >>>> > Actually, >>> >>>> > > we >>> >>>> > > > >> were looking for a drop using bi-sect in the range between >>> e6a7f93 >>> >>>> > > (first >>> >>>> > > > >> commit in the 2.9 branch after 2.8 branch cut) and >>> 6592dfa5 (last >>> >>>> > > commit in >>> >>>> > > > >> the 2.9 branch). And we found these two problematic >>> commits. >>> >>>> > > > >> >>> >>>> > > > >> Perhaps only IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) is responsible for a >>> drop >>> >>>> > between >>> >>>> > > > >> 2.8.1 and 2.9 (we have benchmarked 2.8.1 vs 2.9 with >>> reverted >>> >>>> > > IGNITE-13060 >>> >>>> > > > >> now and performance looks the same) >>> >>>> > > > >> >>> >>>> > > > >> Ticket IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) is not >>> related to >>> >>>> > > drop >>> >>>> > > > >> between 2.8.1 and 2.9, but still has some performance >>> problem, and >>> >>>> > we >>> >>>> > > can >>> >>>> > > > >> win back IGNITE-13060 drop by this ticket. >>> >>>> > > > >> >>> >>>> > > > >> Do we need more investigation on IGNITE-13060 or we leave >>> it as is? >>> >>>> > > > >> >>> >>>> > > > >> What should we do with IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory >>> refactoring)? >>> >>>> > > > >> >>> >>>> > > > >> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 13:25, Alexey Goncharuk < >>> >>>> > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >>> >>>> > > > >>> : >>> >>>> > > > >> >>> >>>> > > > >>> Alexey, >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> >>>> > > > >>> While investigating, I found that IGNITE-12568 has an >>> incorrect fix >>> >>>> > > > >>> version and is actually present in ignite-2.8.1 branch >>> [1], so it >>> >>>> > > cannot be >>> >>>> > > > >>> the source of the drop against 2.8.1. >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> >>>> > > > >>> P.S. Looks like we need to enforce a more accurate work >>> with fix >>> >>>> > > versions >>> >>>> > > > >>> or develop some sort of tooling to verify the fix >>> versions. >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> >>>> > > > >>> --AG >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> >>>> > > > >>> [1] >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/3e492bd23851856bbd0385c6a419892d0bba2a34 >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> >>>> > > > >>> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 12:42, Alexey Goncharuk < >>> >>>> > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >>> >>>> > > > >>>> : >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>> пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 11:16, Alex Plehanov < >>> >>>> > plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>> >>>> > > >: >>> >>>> > > > >>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> Guys, >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and >>> IGNITE-12568 >>> >>>> > > (reverted >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> it >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1 >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot >>> paths, to >>> >>>> > trace >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> these >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> hot paths, it's clear why we have performance drop here. >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) - switch/case >>> block was >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> refactored to an array of message suppliers. The >>> message factory >>> >>>> > > is on >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> the >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> hot path, which explains why this commit has an impact >>> on total >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> performance. >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> I've checked JIT assembly output, done some JMH >>> microbenchmarks, >>> >>>> > > and >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> found >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> that old implementation of MessageFactory.create() >>> about 30-35% >>> >>>> > > faster >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> than >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> the new one. The reason - approach with switch/case can >>> >>>> > effectively >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> inline >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> message creation code, but with an array of suppliers >>> relatively >>> >>>> > > heavy >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> "invokeinterface" cannot be skipped. I've tried to >>> rewrite the >>> >>>> > code >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> using >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> an abstract class for suppliers instead of an interface >>> (to >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> replace "invokeinterface" with the "invokevirtual"), >>> but it gives >>> >>>> > > back >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> only >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> 10% of method performance and in this case, code looks >>> ugly >>> >>>> > > (lambdas >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> can't >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> be used). Currently, I can't find any more ways to >>> optimize the >>> >>>> > > current >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> approach (except return to the switch/case block). >>> Andrey Gura, >>> >>>> > as >>> >>>> > > the >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> author of IGNITE-12568, maybe you have some ideas about >>> >>>> > > optimization? >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps we should revert IGNITE-12568, but there are >>> some metrics >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> already >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> created, which can't be rewritten using old message >>> factory >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> implementation >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> (IGNITE-12756). Guys, WDYT? >>> >>>> > > > >>>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>> Alexey, >>> >>>> > > > >>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>>> I see that IGNITE-12756 (metrics improvements) is >>> already released >>> >>>> > > in >>> >>>> > > > >>>> Ignite 2.8.1 while IGNITE-12568 (message factory) is >>> only present >>> >>>> > > in Ignite >>> >>>> > > > >>>> 2.9. Let's revert both IGNITE-12568 and whichever new >>> metrics >>> >>>> > > created for >>> >>>> > > > >>>> 2.9 that depend on the new message factory to unblock >>> the release >>> >>>> > > and deal >>> >>>> > > > >>>> with the optimizations in 2.10? >>> >>>> > > > >>>> >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> >>
