Hi guys,
I need run IgniteCacheTestSuite3 on TeamCity, but can not find related
configuration. 'Cache 3' configuration runs only
IgniteBinaryObjectsCacheTestSuite3, could you please take a look?
Thank you
#x27;t be used to implement the cluster
>> membership tracking in general. The problem is rather with DiscoverySpi
>> semantics that require a different set of APIs than what Zookeeper provides.
>>
>> Regards
>> Andrey
>>
>> __
n Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Semyon Boikov wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Currently I'm working on implementation of DiscoverySpi based on Apache
> > ZooKeeper (ZookeeperDiscoverySpi) and want to share results of this work.
> >
> > In very large
Hi all,
Currently I'm working on implementation of DiscoverySpi based on Apache
ZooKeeper (ZookeeperDiscoverySpi) and want to share results of this work.
In very large clusters (>1000 nodes) current default implementation of
DiscoverySpi - TcpDiscoverySpi - has some significant drawbacks:
- TcpDi
Hi,
Regarding question about default cache group: by default cache groups are
not enabled, each cache is started in separate group. Cache group is
enabled only if groupName is set in CacheConfiguration.
Thanks
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 11:55 PM, wrote:
> Why not? Obviously compression would hav
Yes, we'll add this validation.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
> > > Can caches within the same group have different MVCC configuration?
> >
> > Do you think we really
? Without fine-grained
> > per-cache approach in the first iteration we can avoid answering it.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Semyon Boikov
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If it is not valid for DML then we can easily detect this situation and
> > >
t; the first iteration. Because we do not know whether it will be valid for
> DML.
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
> > Folks, thank you for feedback, I want to summarize some decisions:
> >
> > 1. Mvcc is disabled by default. We'll
Folks, thank you for feedback, I want to summarize some decisions:
1. Mvcc is disabled by default. We'll add two flags to enable mvcc:
per-cache flag - CacheConfiguration.isMvccEnabled, default value for all
caches - IgniteConfiguration.isMvccEnabled.
2. For initial implementation mvcc for ATOMIC
slowdown ALL mvcc
transactions/queries. As a user I want to make sure that coordinator node
will process only internal requests related to mvcc.
Also why do you think that all numbers should be assigned from single
thread?
Thanks
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Semyon Boikov wrote:
> Niko
fail?
>
> What will happen with if coordinator fails in the middle of a transaction?
> Could tx be committed or rollbacked?
>
> Will we have some user notification if coordinator becomes slower?
>
> > IgniteConfiguration.isMvccCoordinator
>
> flag name seems OK.
>
>
Guys,
I do not really understand mvcc for atomic cache, could you please provide
some real use case.
Thank you
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Ouch... of course it makes sense for atomic caches. Seems I am not fully
> switched on after weekend =)
>
> Agree on other poin
Hi all,
Currently I'm working on MVCC feature (IGNITE-3478) and need your opinion
on related configuration options.
1. MVCC will definitely bring some performance overhead, so I think it
should not be enabled by default, I'm going to add special flag on cache
configuration: CacheConfiguration.isM
Hi,
I had an impression that current behavior is required by jcache, but now I
can not find anything about this neither in spec nor in jcache tck tests.
So I think we can change current behavior.
Thanks
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Nikolay Izhikov
wrote:
> Yakov.
>
> I found following desc
Hi,
Currently tx is AutoCloseable and 'close' should be always called by
interface contract.
Currently Transaction is single-threaded and should not be used by multiple
concurrent threads. But if you call commitAsync and then call 'close' from
commitAsync listener this is correct usage and we sho
Valentin,
As far as I know in 2.0 some changes were made in rendezvous function so
now it can provide better result. Do you have some numbers for 2.0 so that
we can compare rendezvous and fair affinity functions?
Thanks
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:13 AM, wrote:
> Agree with Val, we should bring
Evgeniy and Dmitry, thanks for the fix! Merged into master.
Thanks!
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
wrote:
> Hi Evgeniy,
>
> From my point of view there are no problems with this fix. My testing
> didn't show any issues with fix.
>
> Igniters,
>
> Are there any additional comment
+1 binding
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> Checked maven build, imported and built examples project in IDEA and run
> several compute exampled and started 2 nodes with default config.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2017-07-21 12:21 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov :
>
> > +1 (b
rrides local value on
> rebalanceMode with the one received from grid.
>
> Do you think this approach is reasonable? Wouldn't it be better to fail
> joining node if such inconsistency is detected?
>
> Thanks,
> Sergey.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Semyon
Hi Sergey,
I don't think that this really will be needed, but let's allow for local
config to override all 'rebalanceXXX' properties.
Also please make sure we print warning if any of these properties differs
from config received from grid.
Thanks!
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Sergey Chugunov
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Denis Magda wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
ll not break compatibility
> feature of these products.
>
> Could you provide some tips how to connect different versions of Ignite in
> proper way?
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Vyacheslav,
> >
> > Currently Ignite n
Hi Vyacheslav,
Currently Ignite nodes with different versions can not join the same
cluster, look at OsDiscoveryNodeValidationProcessor (this check is called
from discovery ServerImpl IgniteSpiContext.validateNode).
Thanks
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur
wrote:
> Hi Ignite
Hi Aleksandr,
Regarding transactions: now implementation of transactions assumes that
transaction always belongs to some Ignite node, and it seems it is not
simple task to support transactions for 'thin' clients.
Thanks
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Aleksandr Sokolovskii
wrote:
> Dear Vladi
Done.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Вячеслав Коптилин <
slava.kopti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Igniters,
>
> My name is Slava and I want to contribute to the project.
> In accordance with the following guide
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
> I need con
Done.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Jokser wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Could you please give me JIRA task workflow rights (assign, change status),
> edit descriptions and so on?
> My JIRA account is Jokser.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-
> developers.2346864.n4.na
Hi Dmitry,
Is it possible instead to set priority for manually started builds higher
than for builds triggered by git?
Thanks
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
wrote:
> Hi Igniters,
>
>
>
> Most of us at least once have faced with situation that we have important
> fix to be teste
Hi guys,
As I understand, currently by design, if I set
IgniteConfiguration.persistentStoreConfiguration then persistence is
automatically enabled for ALL caches. Don't you think it can be useful to
have possibility to configure persistence per cache?
Thanks!
As far as I know before 2.0 SQL worked without BinaryMarshaller, is this
support was removed intentionally? Also I think it is possible to implement
DML without BinaryMashaller as well?
I'm not against Vladimir's suggestion, but I think it make sense to ask on
user list to know if somebody uses cu
Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5446.
Thanks
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
> > Now affinity version is switched only when migration for new primaries
> > finishes f
Now affinity version is switched only when migration for new primaries
finishes for all partitions and for all caches.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Absolutely agree.
>
> Please make sure that we switch affinity version only when partition N
> migrates from current node
Hi all,
Currently in Igntie we have two modes for cache affinity changing
(IgniteConfiguration.isLateAffinityAssignment=true/false). Late affinity
assignment mode is enabled by default and I do not see when it can be
useful to disable it. Does it make sense for 2.1 to deprecate property
IgniteConf
Does anybody monitor TeamCity for ignite-5267? I see suite 'Ignite PDS 2'
started to hang 100% after recent merges.
Thanks
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> >
Hi guys,
If persistent store feature is enabled, will IgniteServices survive cluster
restrart?
Thanks!
> passing now.
>
> 2017-06-02 10:20 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov :
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I see some tests in PDS suite fail with message
> > "junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: only for one run, must be removed
> > soon". We never add suche messages
Guys,
I see some tests in PDS suite fail with message
"junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: only for one run, must be removed
soon". We never add suche messages without reference to JIRA issue, please
fix.
Thanks!
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Alexey Goncharuk wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I merged re
Hi Mikhail,
As far as I remember for some reason we wanted to guarantee that all data
structures have unique names. But now I don't see why this can be needed
and it seems we do not need this data structures map at all, if nobody have
objection I think you can implement suggested change.
Thanks!
yone in
> community uses new Run Configs for master-based PRs. In future we will be
> able to remove not necessary suite.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
>
>
> пт, 26 мая 2017 г. в 14:00, Semyon Boikov :
>
> > I just found that 'Ignite Cache 4&#x
I just found that 'Ignite Cache 4' was not executed on TeamCity since it
has from suite name in configuration, I fixed it to use
IgniteCacheTestSuite4, is it correct?
Aslo why we need both IgniteBinaryObjectsCacheTestSuite3 and
IgniteCacheTestSuite3? And why IgniteBinaryBasicTestSuite is not delet
+1
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> This branch (https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-5267) adds a
> distributed and transactional Persistent Store to Apache Ignite project.
> The store seamlessly integrates with Apache Ignite 2.0 page memory
> archite
se/IGNITE-1084
> resolved
> ?
>
> Vadim Opolski
>
> 2017-04-19 14:06 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov :
>
>> Vadim,
>>
>> I found that real cause of IGNITE-1084 is IGNITE-4760, so suggested test
>> fix in pull/1828 is not correct. I added new comments in IGNIT
Hi Vadim,
Did you check test pass on TeamCity in this suite, could you please provide
link for related TeamCity run?
Thanks
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Вадим Опольский
wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> IgniteCache150ClientsTest.java was removed from
> IgniteClientTestSuite.java to IgniteCacheTestSuit
Hi,
Yes, this was done as part of IGNITE-2893, I closed ticket.
Semyon
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Дмитрий Рябов wrote:
> Hello, igniters. Seems like someone already cut all outTx calls, because
> 2.0rc2 doesn't have any of them. So we can just close this ticket.
>
To send message to coordinator we need establish new connection, it is
preferably to use existing connections. Actually we tested this approach,
and on large clusters (> 200 nodes) it did not give start time improvments.
Thanks
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:06 PM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV wrote:
> Hi, Ign
Alexei,
I think AffinityKeyMapped supposed to work for ComputeJobs and any closures
executed by IgniteCompute, but it seems there are no tests for this and
this functionalty is broken now, and I think this should be fixed.
Thanks,
Semyon
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Alexei Scherbakov <
alexe
Vadim,
I found that real cause of IGNITE-1084 is IGNITE-4760, so suggested test
fix in pull/1828 is not correct. I added new comments in IGNITE-4760,
please take a look.
Thanks,
Semyon
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Вадим Опольский
wrote:
> Hello guys!
>
> The issue IGNITE-1084 https://issu
Thanks Vadim, I'll do review today.
Semyon
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Вадим Опольский
wrote:
> Hello guys!
>
> The issue IGNITE-1084 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1794 fixed
> originally by Milap Wadhwa.
>
> I reassigned it on myself because she didn't make improvements fr
I think Ignite can behave like JVM: we can have -Xms -Xmx settings with
defaults depending on available memory.
Thanks
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Denis,
>
> If what you are suggesting is true, then we can always allocate about 80%
> of available memory by defaul
?
>
> Is this fix actual for hibernate5 module?
>
> Vadim Opolski
>
> 2017-04-11 13:40 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov :
>
>> Thanks Vadim, I'll try to do review today.
>>
>> Semyon
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Вадим Опольский
>
Hi Vadim,
I already fixed all issues with hibernate5 tests and merged in
ignite-3477-master, it will be merged in master soon.
Thanks
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Вадим Опольский
wrote:
> Hello guys!
>
> I added folder hibernate5 as module to project settings and discovered some
> errors.
tegy.
>
> And per-cache thread local in method threadLocalForCache fix this issue.
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1768/files
>
> Vadim Opolski
>
>
> 2017-04-07 14:15 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov :
>
>> Hi Vadim,
>>
>> Test does not look correct
in hibernate module
> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> Cc: Valentin Kulichenko , Semyon Boikov <
> sboi...@gridgain.com>
>
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> I added some change to method threadLocalForCache and added test
> testEntityCacheNonStrictFails.
>
> How to r
> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay. Will do it shortly.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Alexander,
> >>
> >> I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'
Alexander,
I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going to
review and merge these changes today.
Thanks!
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Thanks, Alex!
>
> Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all possible
> issues on rev
Hi,
Thank you for reporting this bug, but it seems fix you suggested will not
work for HibernateReadWriteAccessStrategy since single thread local is
needed to use single cross-cache transaction.
I created JIRA issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4760.
Thanks!
On Sun, Feb 26, 201
OK, I'll try to review/merge it today.
Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:20 PM, 李玉珏@163 <18624049...@163.com> wrote:
> Semen,
>
>
> Can this issue be merged into version 1.9?
>
>
> 在 2016/12/13 16:18, Semyon Boikov 写道:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We
It is closed because I just merged fix (rev
8e12513efb24cc6df1da0968560ac932544ee68d).
Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:16 PM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV wrote:
> asfgit <https://github.com/asfgit> has closed my PR for somehow
>
> вт, 14 февр. 2017 г. в 14:46, Semyon Boikov :
>
Thanks Aleksey, I'll review it today.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 2:30 PM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV wrote:
> again, plz review my PR :
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1491
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4492
> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>
Hi,
GridCacheOffHeapTest is some very old class and I think it can be removed.
Currently all actual benchmarks are in 'benchmarks' and 'yardstick' modules.
Thanks
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Yakov, Sam?
>
> Please join and share your thoughts.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On F
Hi Taras,
Why 'async' methods return ComputeTaskFuture, not just IgniteFuture? It
seems that ComputeTaskFuture is needed only for tasks?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Taras Ledkov wrote:
> Gents
>
> I've done changes of the IgniteCompute as a subtask of the whole async API
> refactoring (
I'll take a look.
Thanks
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Can anyone take a look at this ticket?
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4450
>
> Looks like pretty serious issue. Most likely it can happen with
> tran
Hi,
We had a lot of more priority issues so I somehow missed IGNITE-3732. As a
workaround it is possible to create special thread pool and when message is
sent to local node execute message listener there instead of
IgniteMessaging usage.
Thanks
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Denis Magda wrot
Hi Sergey,
I have few comments:
- when new node joins cluster all existing nodes provide current data from
'collectDiscoveryData' callback and then this data is sent in
TcpDiscoveryNodeAddedMessage as 'nodeId -> nodeData' map. In case of
'typeId->typeName' mapping it is supposed that when 'collec
Hi,
I reviewed and merged your fix. Thanks for contribution!
Thanks!
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Saikat Maitra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have raised PR[1] for the following jira ticket[2].
>
> Please review and let me know if any changes required.
>
> Regards,
>
> Saikat
>
> [1] https://github.c
Here is JIRA issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3606
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Semyon Boikov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I reproduced this issue, thank you for test! After quick debugging It
> seems that this is some problem with Ignite backpressure mechanism in
> co
Dmitry, all Ignite features are always thoroughly tested =)
I created branch ignite-1.7.0.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
> > Sure Dmitry, we will run tests with large data set.
> &
Sure Dmitry, we will run tests with large data set.
Regarding 1.7. release: If there are no objections I'm going to cut off 1.7
branch and start prepare it for release.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Semyon Boikov
, Jul 22, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Today I merged into master 'distributed join' implementation -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1232 (thanks to
Yes, I'm working on it, updated ticket.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
> > We already have similar issue reproduced in our benchmarks -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IG
We already have similar issue reproduced in our benchmarks -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3300. I think this is related
to optimziation done in 1.6 to store key partition in the cache key. I
believe fix will be included in 1.7 release.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Valentin Kuli
Hi,
Last week distributed joins functionality was merged, but one thing was
overlooked. Distributed joins should be explicitly enabled using using
method 'setDistributedJoins' available in java API
(SqlQuery/SqlFieldsQuery). First, this parameter should be also added in
.Net/C++/REST API, this is
Hi,
Today I merged into master 'distributed join' implementation -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1232 (thanks to Sergi, he
implemented this feature). I think this together with recent bugfixes worth
1.7 release. Do you think we can cut off 1.7 release branch from master?
Thanks
O
Hi,
I added you in the contributors list.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, NoTrueScotsman
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to attempt a fix for IGNITE-3399 (currently unclaimed in
> Jira) as my newbie contribution.
>
> Could you add me to the list of Ignite contributors?
> Jira username: thehoff
>
Another issue which usually confuses users is Ignite 'implementation
details' of asynchronous execution: it operation is local it can be
executed from calling thread (for example, if 'async put' is executed in
atomic cache from primary node then cache store will be updated from
calling thread). Doe
I think we should detect such situation and throw exception. As I remember
for cross cache qieries we throw exception if caches have different
partitions distribution.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Guys, this does not work in general case. If you provide more than one
>
Hi,
We get back to 'distributed join' feature. I resurrected branch
'ignite-1232', did brief review of changes, added more tests and analysed
some failures. Here are issues identified so far, *Sergi*, could you please
comment:
- it seems current code does not properly handle case when custom
Affi
As far as I know the only reason sources of Nullable are in Ignite - we did
not want to have any dependecy for 'core' module.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> CC-ing Ignite dev list to the thread as well.
>
> Igniters, up to today is there any reason why we nee
+1
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> Dear Sirs!
>
> We have uploaded release candidate to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/1.6.0-rc1/
>
> This is very important release containing huge amount of fixes and
> improvements.
> Over 600 issues were closed since
In 1.6 we implemented 'late affinity assignment' mode (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-324 and
IgniteConfiguration.isLateAffinityAssignment)
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov
wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2832
> "CacheJdbcPojoStoreFactory.
As I understand in many palces thread locals can be used for performance
reasons, and it is not good idea to always clear it.
Initial problem in IGNITE-967 was about tomcat, since tomcat provides
solution for this problem do we really need fix something in Ignite?
Valentin, you created this ticke
+1
Also need to check these classes with lots of static utility methods:
IgniteUtils and X.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> This is about our infamous *GridFunc *class. I suggest to deprecate it and
> strongly discourage any usage of any method from it.
>
Andrey,
I agree that current situation with threading in Ignite is very
inconvenient when user callbacks execute some non-trivial code. But
changing this to async dispatch is huge refactoring, even changing this
just for continuous queries callback is not so easy task.
We can start with https://i
Hi Alexey,
I reviewed your changes, added comments in tickets.
Semyon
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Can I get a review of pull requests 508 [1] and 509 [2] for Jira tickets
> 2707 [3] and 2709 [4] respectively? The changes a
Hi Denis,
Yakov and me looked at changes at ignite-2666 and we do not understand how
ring message worker can be interrupted except case when node is stopped?
Should we care about this case?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Please review the critical minor fixe
Hi,
For some reason local node was marked as failed, need understand in which
case it is possible, will create ticket.
Semyon
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Igniters (esp Sam),
>
> I see this assertion when running tests. Can you please take a look at it?
>
> Here is t
I think scan query implementation can be more complex than just sending
closures to all nodes. e.g. it should handle topology changes. IMO it is
not good idea to use compute instead of queries.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Valentin
Artem,
One more thing for new tests: I think test should start both server and
client nodes and use Ignite API from all nodes.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Artem Shutak wrote:
> Dmitriy,
>
> Actually, I don't have a list with all the permutations.
>
> At first, we need to split in our discus
+1
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> Dear Sirs!
>
> We have uploaded release candidate to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/1.5.0.final-rc3/
>
> This is very important release containing initial versions of Ignite.NET
> and Ignite C++ and many other importa
Alexey,
You could get this error if classnames.properties was not regenerated after
recent classes renaming,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov
wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> My code that works fine couple of days ago started to fail with exception:
> java.lang.AssertionError: BinaryMe
I fixed this issue with not release locks (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2008), fix will be available
in 1.5 release.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Thanks Semyon!
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
>
Dmitry, Valentin,
I'll look at this issue today.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Val,
>
> I think if lock futures are not complete, then the issue remains, because
> it can cause hanging clients. Did you get an idea of what it would take to
> fix it?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed
t;
> 2015-11-28 15:57 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov :
>
> > Yakov,
> >
> > When node is stopped all cache futures are completed with error, where
> did
> > you see hang?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Yakov Zhdanov
> > wrote:
>
Yakov,
When node is stopped all cache futures are completed with error, where did
you see hang?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I see the following code
>
> (org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/distributed/dht/GridDhtTxPrepareFuture.java:1129):
>
>
Just merged single get optimizations (improvements in the last benchmarks
run: ~10% for atomic-put-get, ~5% for tx-put-get).
+1
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> I agree that there is absolutely no problems of have multiple ways to
> provide contributions.
>
> If you are contributor, you can:
> - Provide a patch;
> - Provide a PR using GitHub mirror.
>
> If you are committer, you can:
> - Provi
Hi,
Yesterday I merged optimizations for tx update operations working single
key, got ~7% improvement in tx-put benchmark.
And today I finished to implement optimization for cache 'get' operation
with single key. Got another benchmark results improvements: ~10% with
atomic-put-get, ~5% with tx-pu
We run with -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+UseParNewGC.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Semyon,
>
> Do you know what kind of Garbage Collector you have used for the
> benchmarks? Was it G1?
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Semyon
I merged into 1.5 performance optimizations implemented by Yakov. With
these optimizations we got up to 20% throughput increase in transactional
cache benchmarks.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I think we can start preparation to Ignite-1.5 release which will in
Alexey,
We already implemented 'per-transaction entry' behavior for 'skipStore'
flag and IgniteTxEntry already have 'flags' field where 'keepPortable' flag
can be added.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> As a part of work on I
queues and just use existing per-entry list of mvcc
candidates, so ordered approach will definitely perform better than
try-lock.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Semyon Boikov
> wrote:
>
> It seems there is better approach to
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
