Agree with Dmitriy. We should avoid having multiple implementations of the
same thing if possible. Lets put our efforts on fixing issues with
PageMemory.
Sergi
2017-01-03 20:11 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> Vova,
>
> I would qualify the need for PageMemory as strategic for Apache Ignite.
> Wit
Vova,
I would qualify the need for PageMemory as strategic for Apache Ignite.
With addition of SQL Grid component, Ignite can now also satisfy in-memory
database use cases, which are very space consuming and require a new memory
management approach. Basic distributed hash map is not going to work
Dima,
Performance is a serious concern, but not the main one. My point is that
standard users working on commodity hardware and requiring only in-memory
mode simply do not need page memory. They need distributed HashMap. We
already have it. It is fast, it is stable, it have been tested rigorously
Sorry, just recalled that Unsafe is not JNI based. However, my previous point
of view still remains the same.
> On Dec 31, 2016, at 11:39 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
>
> JNI-based Unsafe that also brings performance hit
—
Denis
Here we need to define what’s meant under *fast enough*. Java is unmanageable
in terms of memory and it’s unlikely that any custom memory manageable solution
like the PageMemory will outperform it ever. Simply because the Java heap will
still be an intermediate layer between an application and t
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
So my main concern is *what about current heap mode*? It must stay alive.
> Page-memory approach should be abstracted out and implemented in addition
> to current heap-approach, not instead of it. Have high-end machine and
> suffer from GC?
So are you, guys, suggesting to accept page-memory as the right one by
default, which:
1) Doesn't work with half of current cache features
2) Halved our performance
3) Goes against the whole Java ecosystem with it's "offheap-first" approach?
Good try, but no :-)
Let me clarify on p.3. Offheap-fir
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I pushed an initial implementation of IGNITE-3477 to ignite-3477 branch for
> community review and further discussion.
>
> Note that the implementation lacks the following features:
> - On-heap des
Denis, this is not "dreaming". We can't have a release with less features than
1.8. We can only add features, not subtract.
Dmitriy
> On Dec 29, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Denis Magda wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
>> On Dec 29, 2016, at 1:37 AM, Alexey Goncharuk
>> wrote:
>>
>> The subject of this discussio
Alex,
> On Dec 29, 2016, at 1:37 AM, Alexey Goncharuk
> wrote:
>
> The subject of this discussion is to determine whether the PageMemory
> approach is a way to go, because the this implementation is almost 2x
> slower than current 2.0 branch.
What is the main reason for that? Some architectur
I agree, we should fix all the outstanding issues and resolve the
performance problems before merging it into 2.0
Sergi
2016-12-29 12:37 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk :
> Folks,
>
> I pushed an initial implementation of IGNITE-3477 to ignite-3477 branch for
> community review and further discussion
11 matches
Mail list logo
