Re: Fix force rebuild indexes

Kirill, Indeed current behavior of force rebuild API seems broken, we need to fix it, +1 from me too. BTW would it be useful to allow rebuilding individual indices? On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 6:20 PM ткаленко кирилл wrote: > Hello! > > What do you mean by the implementation plan? > Implement tick

Node and cluster life-cycle in ignite-3

Hello Igniters, I would like to start a discussion on evolving IEP-73 [1]. Now it covers a narrow topic about components dependencies but it makes sense to cover in the IEP a broader question: how different components should be initialized to support different modes of an individual node or a who

Re: Binary object format KB article

Ivan, thank you for documenting this functionality, agree with Pavel here. I think this document is a good starting point and contains a lot of low-level details and great examples but from my perspective it doesn't show how binary objects fit into a broader picture. It worth adding higher-level

Re: Binary object format KB article

to a reader. And yes, > intuition about metadata registration is definitely an important, > related but slightly different subject. > > ср, 16 окт. 2019 г. в 14:23, Sergey Chugunov : > > > > Ivan, thank you for documenting this functionality, agree with Pavel > here. > > &

Contribution to Apache Ignite

there are plenty of them and we could figure out what to pick up next. Anyway, thank you for your interest to our project and community! [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11312 -- Best regards, Sergey Chugunov.

Re: IgniteOutOfMemoryException in LOCAL cache mode with persistence enabled

Hi Mitchell, I believe that research done by Anton is correct, and the root cause of the OOME is proportion of memory occupied by metapages in data region. Each cache started in data region allocates one or more metapages per initialized partition so when you run your test with only one cache this

New blog post on Apache Ignite in AWS

Hello community, Recently I published a new blog post on getting started with Apache Ignite in AWS [1]. I tried to make my example as simple as possible while keeping it usable. Let me know if this post is useful for you. I plan to write several follow-up posts about AWS-specific things but base

Re: AWS EBS Discovery: Contributor Wanted

think? -- Thank you, Sergey Chugunov. On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:32 PM Emmanouil Gkatziouras wrote: > Hi all! > > Yes It seems possible to get some free quota for integration tests on AWS > [1] however most probably they are not gonna last forever. > > [1] > > https://aws.am

Re: AWS EBS Discovery: Contributor Wanted

p on that. > > > > Kind regards > > *Emmanouil Gkatziouras* > > https://egkatzioura.com/ | > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/gkatziourasemmanouil/ > > https://github.com/gkatzioura > > > > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 15:15, Sergey Chugunov > > > wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Allow or prohibit a joint use of @deprecated and @IgniteExperimental

-1 Prohibit. To me as a developer the situation when old but stable API is deprecated with only experimental (thus unstable/unfinished) alternative is very far from comfortable. And from outside folks it may look like as a sign of immature processes inside Ignite community (which is definitely not

Re: MetaStorage key length limitations and Cache Metrics configuration

Ivan, I also don't think this issue is a blocker for 2.8 as it affects only experimental functionality and only in special cases. Removing key length limitations in MetaStorage seems more strategic approach to me but depending on how we decide to approach it (as a local fix or as part of a broade

Re: deadlock in system pool on meta update

Hello Sergey, Your analysis looks valid to me, we definitely need to investigate this deadlock and find out how to fix it. Could you create a ticket and write a test that reproduces the issue with sufficient probability? Thanks! On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:22 PM Sergey-A Kosarev wrote: > Classi

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-47 Native persistence defragmentation

Hi Ivan, I have an idea about suggested maintenance mode. First of all, I agree with your ideas about discovery restrictions: node should not join topology when performing defragmentation. At the same time I haven't heard about requests for this mode from users, so we don't know much about possi

Re: Question: network issues of single node.

eminds me of > those notorious issues that would fire once a week or month under specific > configuration settings. So, I would not touch the code that fixes the issue > unless @Alexey Goncharuk or @Sergey Chugunov > confirms that it's safe to do. Also, there should > be a test f

Re: Question: network issues of single node.

Of course I meant ticket [1] increased cluster stability in situation of blinking network. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7163 On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:51 PM Sergey Chugunov wrote: > Vladimir, > > Adding to what Alexey has said I remember that cases of short-ter

Re: [DISCUSSION] New Ignite settings for IGNITE-12438 and IGNITE-13013

nts not to publish their addresses these scenarios will stop working without additional logic like sending data through router node. As far as I know client-client connectivity is involved in p2p class deployment scenarios, does anyone know about other cases? -- Thanks, Sergey Chugunov On Wed,

Re: [DISCUSSION] New Ignite settings for IGNITE-12438 and IGNITE-13013

articular configuration property. > > > Potentially, we can put more effort throughout an Ignite 3.0 timeframe > > and > > > remove the property altogether. @Valentin Kulichenko > > > , could you please suggest any alternate > > naming? > > > > >

[DISCUSSION] Maintenance Mode feature

Hello Igniters, I want to start a discussion about new supporting feature that could be very useful in many scenarios where persistent storage is involved: Maintenance Mode. *Summary* Maintenance Mode (MM for short) is a special state of Ignite node when node doesn't serve user requests nor joins

Re: [DISCUSSION] Maintenance Mode feature

> > > 27 авг. 2020 г., в 10:25, Sergey Chugunov > написал(а): > > > > Hello Igniters, > > > > I want to start a discussion about new supporting feature that could be > > very useful in many scenarios where persistent storage is involved: > > Maintenanc

Re: [DISCUSSION] Maintenance Mode feature

far as I know > currently we already have 3 modes (inactive, read-only, read-write) > and the subject is about one more. From the first glance it could be > hard for a user to understand and use all modes properly. Do we really > need all spectrum? Could we simplify things somehow? >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Maintenance Mode feature

> > Do you plan to provide a possibility for client where he can make a > > decision without a manual intervention? > > > > For example: Start node and manually agree with an option and after > > automatically resolve conflict and back to topology as a stable node. >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Maintenance Mode feature

e started in a special mode" approach we will get > an additional flag in the code making the code more complex and > fragile. Should not I worry about it? > > 2020-09-02 10:45 GMT+03:00, Sergey Chugunov : > > Vladislav, Ivan, > > > > Thank you for your questions a

Re: [DISCUSSION] Maintenance Mode feature

ter key > > differs from the cluster. > > To recover node Ignite should locally change master key before join. > > > > Please, take a look into source code [1] > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/mai

Re: [DISCUSSION] Maintenance Mode feature

s never were easy. Unfortunately I cannot suggest > 100% better approaches so far. So, I should trust your vision. > > 2020-09-22 10:29 GMT+03:00, Sergey Chugunov : > > Ivan, > > > > Checkpointer in Maintenance Mode is started and allows normal operations > as > > it may b

Re: [DISCUSSION] Maintenance Mode feature

e/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/managers/encryption/GridEncryptionManager.java#L710 > > > 21 сент. 2020 г., в 14:37, Sergey Chugunov > написал(а): > > > > Ivan, > > > > Sorry for some confusion, MM indeed is not a normal mode. What I was > trying >

[DISCUSSION] User-facing API for managing Maintenance Mode

Hello Ignite dev community, As internal implementation of Maintenance Mode [1] is getting closer to finish I want to discuss one more thing: user-facing API (I will use control utility for examples) for managing it. What should be managed? When a node enters MM, it may start some automatic action

IEP-53 Maintenance Mode: request for review

Hello Igniters, I'm getting closer to finishing main ticket for Maintenance Mode feature [1] and now working on test fixes (most likely test modifications are needed). So I would like to ask for a review of my pull request [2] to discuss the code earlier. Test status is pretty good so I expect to

Re: Broken test in master: BasicIndexTest

Max, Thanks for spotting this, great catch! Zhenya, could you please file a ticket of at least Critical priority? On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 9:24 AM Zhenya Stanilovsky wrote: > > > Thanks Maxim, the test is correct no need for removal. > I checked 2.9 too, but looks it all ok there. I will take a

Re: IEP-53 Maintenance Mode: request for review

> Pavel > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 9:59 AM Sergey Chugunov > wrote: > > > Hello Igniters, > > > > I'm getting closer to finishing main ticket for Maintenance Mode feature > > [1] and now working on test fixes (most likely test modifications are > > nee

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite 3.0 development approach

Igniters, I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in these three points: 1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be unified and should integrate with each other easily

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite 3.0 development approach

plication infrastructure > > > > Any smaller subset of changes will leave Ignite 3.0 in a transient state > > with people being too afraid to move to it because there are more major > > breaking changes scheduled. > > > > пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:28, Alexey Zinoviev

[DISCUSSION] Unified Configuration for Ignite 3.0

Hello Igniters, I would like to present two pull requests [1], [2] with basic implementation of IEP-55 for Unified Configuration [3] and IEP-63 REST API for Unified Configuration [4]. The main goal of these PRs is to present and discuss a new approach for preparing and managing Ignite configurati

Re: [DISCUSSION] Unified Configuration for Ignite 3.0

gards, Sergey Chugunov On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 3:20 AM Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > Thanks for doing this. > > It looks like PR #5 is already under review, so I guess it will be merged > soon. I would really love to see th

Re: [DISCUSSION] Unified Configuration for Ignite 3.0

< valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Sergey! Looks good to me. > > -Val > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:12 AM Sergey Chugunov < > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Val, > > > > Your comments make total sense to me, I've fixed them and u

Re: Baseline auto-adjust`s discuss

Anton, As I understand from the IEP document policy was supposed to support two timeouts: soft and hard, so here you're proposing a bit simpler functionality. Just to clarify, do I understand correctly that this feature when enabled will auto-adjust blt on each node join/node left event, and time

Re: Re[2]: Asynchronous registration of binary metadata

Denis, Thanks for bringing this issue up, decision to write binary metadata from discovery thread was really a tough decision to make. I don't think that moving metadata to metastorage is a silver bullet here as this approach also has its drawbacks and is not an easy change. In addition to workar

Re: Asynchronous registration of binary metadata

> > How would we deal with races between registration and metadata > > usages > > > > > > with > > > > > > > such fast-fix? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe, that we need to move it to distribute

Cluster ID and tag: identification of the cluster

/IGNITE-12111 -- Best Regards, Sergey Chugunov.

Unexpected behavior of DiscoveryCustomMessage acks

Hello folks, Working on IGNITE-4302 I developed a protocol for delivering metadata updates to all nodes in cluster. This protocol relies on a guarantee of *DiscoveryCustomMessage* that each message is delivered to *CustomEventListener* exactly o

Re: Unexpected behavior of DiscoveryCustomMessage acks

Yakov, Thanks for clean explanation, also I found exactly that logic in RingMessageWorker code. But I strongly believe that this behavior should have been documented in *DiscoveryCustomMessage* interface (I think it is the best place for this). Messaging managers like discovery manager must prov

IGNITE-4758 - introducing cache memory policies

Hello Ignite devs, I created new subtask under IGNITE-3477 with my vision of how *MemoryPolicy* may be implemented. In a nutshell my idea is as follows: instead of having only one instance of *

INGITE-4302 PR is ready for review

Hello Igniters, I finished my work on IGNITE-4302 *Exchange binary metadata with discovery custom messages*, pull request is open, TC results

Re: IGNITE-4758 - introducing cache memory policies

ry policy could be shared between different > caches, right? > > D. > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello Ignite devs, > > > > I created new subtask <https://issues.apache.

Re: IGNITE-4758 - introducing cache memory policies

Yes, they use the same PageMemory region. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > When 2 caches share the same memory policy, does it mean that they are > using the same Page Memory offheap space? > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Sergey Chugunov <

Re: IGNITE-4758 - introducing cache memory policies

t makes sense to use lower size by default. I think 100 MB would be enough. Surely this setting will be configurable via existing MemoryConfiguration interface. Thanks, Sergey. On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Sergey Chugunov wrote: > Yes, they use the same PageMemory region. > > On

IGNITE-4536 metrics of new offheap storage

fragmented entries in cache: may be useful to adjust page size. Please suggest any other metrics that may be worth tracking. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3477 Thanks, Sergey Chugunov.

Re: IGNITE-4536 metrics of new offheap storage

getOffHeapRemovals //same as above Please share your thought if I miss something here. Thanks, Sergey Chugunov. On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Sergey Chugunov wrote: > Hello Igniters, > > As part of [1] cache metrics need to be updated as some of them like swap > hits are no

Re: IGNITE-4536 metrics of new offheap storage

k in new model is the same as getCacheMisses > > getOffHeapMissPercentage //same as above > > getOffHeapPuts //same as above > > getOffHeapRemovals //same as above > > Could you please prepare an updated version of the cache metrics adding > new methods and renaming e

Re: IGNITE-4536 metrics of new offheap storage

loat[N] - page_size - 16 to page size free bytes. > Agree; using an array instead of separate methods is better. > > — > Denis > > > On Mar 16, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Sergey Chugunov > wrote: > > > > Denis, > > > > Here is a version of CacheMet

Re: IGNITE-4536 metrics of new offheap storage

ldn’t it better to have a single method like this? > > > > public float[] getPagesFreeBytesPercentage(); > > > > where > > > > float[0] - 0 to 16 free bytes. > > float[1] - 16 to 32 free bytes. > > float[2] - 32 to 64 free bytes. > > ….. > &g

Question: local cache on client nodes

ira/browse/IGNITE-3477 Thanks, Sergey Chugunov

Re: Question: local cache on client nodes

e like data structure and talk to it > using Ignite APIs. > > The upshot is that this kind of cache can be started on any node and we > should keep supporting this capability in 2.0. > > -- > Denis > > On Thursday, March 30, 2017, Sergey Chugunov > wrote: > >

Re: Page Memory behavior with default memory policy

Hello Denis, There is a small piece of documentation in *MemoryConfiguration *class, although I think it should be moved to *MemoryPolicyConfiguration *and detailed a lot. I'm going to write some documentation soon about validation rules that are applied to memory policies configuration (there ar

Re: Memory policies examples fails

Denis, It looks like partition exchange mechanism allocates a lot of pages right after the cache is started. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. Thanks, Sergey. On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > I’ve created a simple example to demonstrate how to set up

Re: Memory policies examples fails

x27;t find any documentation on this, but I think it is part of new PageMemory-based storage so it needs to be documented as part of ignite-2.0 release. Thanks, Sergey. On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Sergey Chugunov wrote: > Denis, > > It looks like partition exchange mechanism allo

Re: Memory policies examples fails

sage? > > D. > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Denis, > > > > I found an issue with the example: each cache introduces some memory > > overhead (mostly for cache partitions data struc

Re: Page Memory behavior with default memory policy

Guys, I created a ticket to implement these improvements, please take a look: IGNITE-5024 Besides employing the idea of allocation 80% of physical memory I'm also suggesting to introduce one more configuration property to specify default MemoryP

Re: Null as a name for default memory policy?

Guys, I created a ticket for this as a subtask of IGNITE-3488 ; you can find it IGNITE-5025 Thanks, Sergey. On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > +1 to "default". > > > O

Re: Page Memory behavior with default memory policy

Sergi > > > > > > 2017-04-19 22:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > > > Sergey, > > > > > > > > I have responded in the ticket. Can you please provide the current > and > > > the > > > > proposed confi

Re: Page Memory behavior with default memory policy

Dmitriy, Replied in the ticket. Thanks, Sergey. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Sergey, > > I have responded in the ticket. Can you please provide the current and the > proposed configuration examples? > > D. > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at

Re: MemoryMetrics interface inconsistencies

I guess the main reason to have IgniteCache returning snapshot metrics was to collect metrics about distributed cache across the cluster. At the same time MemoryMetrics were initially designed to be local on each node, there were no requirements about collecting cluster-wide MemoryMetrics. Collect

Re: MemoryMetrics interface inconsistencies

disagree. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) As a user, I would expect MemoryMetrics instance to be > >>>>> read-only and serializable, so I can send it somewhere, store, > >>>>> put into a collection and draw a graph in UI, etc. > >>&g

Re: MemoryMetrics interface inconsistencies

I still don't have a full picture of > > this. > > Yes, there is a gap in here. We will start improving the situation with > this ticket: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4963 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4963> > > — > De

IGNITE-5124 is ready for review

Hello Igniters, I implemented UX improvements for MemoryMetrics and added/clarified some documentation to public API. Please find changes under pull request here , for discussions feel free to leave comments in upsource review

Re: IGNITE-5124 is ready for review

t; > On May 23, 2017, at 1:44 AM, Sergey Chugunov > wrote: > > > > Hello Igniters, > > > > I implemented UX improvements for MemoryMetrics and added/clarified some > > documentation to public API. > > > > Please find changes under pull request her

Re: Persistent Store example fails with NPE

Hi Denis, What is the expected behavior in that case? Bug doesn't suggest any. >From my point of view it would be better to throw an exception on startup with meaningful message than to silently create a default MemoryConfiguration under the cover. Thanks, Sergey. On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:00 A

Re: Persistent Store example fails with NPE

y point is that we just need to create a MemoryConfiguration implicitly > if it’s not defined (no any warnings or extra messages). It’s a > responsibility of our platform to generate a default configuration if it’s > not set explicitly. > > — > Denis > > > On May 26, 2017, at 8:46

Re: Persistent Store example fails with NPE

proceed without persistence. Supporting persistence on client nodes definitely requires more thoughtful discussion and may be added in the future. Thanks, Sergey. On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Sergey Chugunov wrote: > Denis, > > I see from example that you're trying to start

Re: Persistent Store example fails with NPE

ack when I need to add an > empty MemoryConfiguration to a client config file. Plus, it requires us to > create different configuration files for servers and clients which has to > be optional by default. > > — > Denis > > > On May 26, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Sergey Chugunov > wrote: >

Re: Persistent Distributed Store Metrics

Hello Denis, I have an idea of how we could clarify proposed above approach to collecting metrics for PDS. I suggest to split all metrics into two major groups (disk-related and memory-related) and group them in the following interfaces: public interface PersistenceMemoryMetrics extends MemoryMe

Re: Persistent Distributed Store Metrics

Guys, I created a ticket [1] summing up results of our discussion. Please review and leave comments if something is still unclear there. Thanks, Sergey [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5375 On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Denis, I do agree, the con

Re: Persistent Store Stabilization for release

Hello Denis, There are three suites [1] [2] [3] configured on TeamCity with bunch of tests for PDS functionality. As you can see most of tests are passing now (only 6 tests are failing, for *partitionLoss *tests problem was almost sorted out), it looks like that this functionality is pretty stabl

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

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 discu

Re: Brainstorm: Make TC Run All faster

? In my mind it is possible that we have a good bunch of tests that cover the same code and could be replaced with just a single test. In the ideal world we would even determine the minimal set of tests to cover our codebase and remove excessive. -- Best regards, Sergey Chugunov. On Thu, Nov 15

Re: [VOTE] Creation dedicated list for github notifiacations

+1 Plus this dedicated list should be properly documented in wiki, mentioning it in How to Contribute [1] or in Make Teamcity Green Again [2] would be a good idea. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Make+

Re: [DISCUSSION] Design document. Rebalance caches by transferring partition files

Eduard, This algorithm looks much easier but could you clarify some edge cased please? If I understand correctly when there is a continuous flow of updates to the page already transferred to receiver checkpointer will write this page to the log file over and over again. Do you see here any risks

Re: Enabling memory and persistence metrics

Denis, Indeed for default MemoryPolicy user has to create a MemoryPolicy explicitly. But I strongly dislike the idea of adding new global setting to MemoryConfiguration section. This section is already overloaded with a lot of non-obvious stuff; and adding one more will make it even worse. The b

Local-specific vs cluster-wide configuration setting for cache groups

Hello folks, Investigating failing test [1] I found that cache group setting *rebalanceDelay *was rewritten on joining node by configuration received from the grid when it supposed to be local-specific. I fixed this and test resumed passing, but I have a broader question: which configuration sett

Re: Local-specific vs cluster-wide configuration setting for cache groups

> > Thanks! > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Sergey Chugunov < > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello folks, > > > > Investigating failing test [1] I found that cache group setting > > *rebalanceDelay > > *was rewritten on joining

Re: Local-specific vs cluster-wide configuration setting for cache groups

er SYNC or ASYNC). > > Thanks > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Sergey Chugunov < > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Semen, > > > > What about attribute *rebalanceMode*? From > > *ClusterCachesInfo::validateCacheGroupConfiguration* I see t

Re: Local-specific vs cluster-wide configuration setting for cache groups

please proceed with review. On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Sergey Chugunov wrote: > Okay, I'll modify my code and let you know when everything will be ready > for review. > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Semyon Boikov > wrote: > >> Let's treat consistency

Re: "not null" constraint support

Sergey, It may be a good idea to distinguish between field constraints (like "not null" one) which can be applied to only one field; and more complex constraints that involves more than one field. In case of field constraints it is better to simplify our model and allow only one field to appear i

BinaryObjectBuilder: policy of reusing

Hello folks, Recently I filed a ticket [1] with very simple test where correct usage of BinaryObjectBuilder is vague. The issue boils down to the fact that it is unclear from documentation and behavior whether reusing of BinaryObjectBuilder is allowed. Let's discuss here what is the correct beha

[IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

Folks, I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy maxMemory defaults. Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates maxMemory size for performance reasons. As default size of maxMemory is 80% o

Cluster auto activation design proposal

Hello Ignite developers, I would like to start a discussion about design of important improvement enabling automatic activation of cluster with durable store turned on [1]. Also it will help us to solve an issue with data divergence (e.g. this may happen when half of the cluster goes down and upda

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

n't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence, > >>> when > >>>>>>>> 80% of > >>>>>>>> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How > >> do > >>>> you > >>>>>>>>

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

>From my standpoint name for the concept should emphasize that nodes from the set constitute a target topology - the place where user wants to be. If we go in a "node set" way, what about FixedNodeSet or BaseNodeSet? "restart node set" also is a bit confusing because this concept works not only t

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

Dmitriy, Obvious connotation of "minimal set" is a set that cannot be decreased. But lets consider the following case: user has a cluster of 50 nodes and decides to switch off 3 nodes for maintenance for a while. Ok, user just does it and then recreates this "minimal node set" to only 47 nodes.

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

I also would like to provide more use cases of how BLT is supposed to work (let me call it this way until we come up with a better one): 1. User creates new BLT using WebConsole or other tool and "applies" it to brand-new cluster. 2. User starts up brand-new cluster with desired amount o

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

gt;> > > > >> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion the > > > >> allocation works different depending on whether the persistence is > > used > > > or > > > >> not: > > > >> > > > >>

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

#3, the #1 and #2 make little sense. > > Why is #3 so difficult? > > ⁣D.​ > > On Aug 4, 2017, 10:46 AM, at 10:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Dmitriy, > > > >Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

at 12:44 PM, wrote: > Hang on. I thought we were talking about offheap size, GC should not be > relevant. Am I wrong? > > ⁣D.​ > > On Aug 4, 2017, 11:38 AM, at 11:38 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Do you see an obvious way of implement

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

Folks, I've summarized all results from our discussion so far on wiki page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Automatic+activation+design+-+draft I hope I reflected the most important details and going to add API suggestions for all use cases soon. Feel free to give feedback her

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

cator "we are running out of memory" just doesn't work here. Thanks, Sergey. On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:01 PM, wrote: > But why? We allocate the memory, so we should know when it runs out. What > am i missing? > > ⁣D.​ > > On Aug 4, 2017, 11:55 AM, at 11:55 AM,

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

Folks, I filed a ticket [1] to address the concern of starting too many nodes. Please review it. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6003 Thanks, Sergey. On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Sergey Chugunov wrote: > Dmitriy, > > When Ignite node "allocates memory&quo

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

takes out nodes from cluster (e.g. for maintenance purposes): > > no > > > rebalance happens until user recreates BLT on new cluster topology.* > > > > > > What if a node is crashed (or some other kind of outage) in the middle > of > > > the nigh

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

t;topology" contains all nodes user is going to work with for a long run. It is what user plans to work with and base the work on. Any thoughts on this? Thanks, Sergey. On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Sergey Chugunov wrote: > Going down "node set" road: > > -fixed node s

Design proposal: automatic creation of BaselineTopology

Folks, As we are getting to the conclusion on the discussion about cluster automatic activation proposal [1] I would like to propose one more thing that may also be useful here. In addition to options of creating BLT (BTW, any ideas of a better name for the concept are welcome; feel free to send

Re: Service versioning

Ilya, I think the proposed change definitely makes sense. At the same time I think the scope of the ticket is too broad. It covers at least two different aspects of service grid functionality: - Very specific issue of service upgrade process which is caused by current design flaw (although

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

n this case, the name Baseline Topology will appear only in documentation, > in which case the name is OK (that is if I am understanding the design > correctly). > > However, the list initial set of nodes can be called > initialActivationNodes. > > Makes sense? > > D. >

  1   2   3   4   5   >