Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite Update Checker

2017-09-30 Thread dsetrakyan 
Why would we need googleads for youtube? Any chance to disable it?

⁣D.​

On Sep 30, 2017, 10:25 AM, at 10:25 AM, Prachi Garg  wrote:
>Yes, I see in dev tools that calls to googleads and doubleclick are
>made
>from Youtube.
>
>On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
>> I also did a global search on the Ignite website, but didn't find
>anything
>> for googleads or doubleclick.
>>
>>
>> Could you remove and add screencasts block temporary on your local
>> deployment to see if the calls to commercial scripts reported by Cos
>appear
>> in your Chrome dev toolkit?
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:56 PM, Prachi Garg  wrote:
>>
>> We use the following scripts -
>>
>> https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js - used on homepage to display
>> tweets
>> https://static.addtoany.com/menu/page.js - used on events page for
>social
>> media sharing
>> https://www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js
>>
>> I also did a global search on the Ignite website, but didn't find
>anything
>> for googleads or doubleclick.
>>
>> -Prachi
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Denis Magda 
>wrote:
>>
>>> That’s definitely worthwhile checking. Prachi, as the one who
>embedded
>>> the screencast, would you check the theory?
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Cos, Denis.
>>>
>>> I think it is because we have embedded videos (on YouTube).
>>> Mauricio or Denis, please check my idea.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Konstantin Boudnik 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Sorry guys - I neglected the fact that our lists don't permit
 attachments. I have put the screenshot to an external server [1]

 [1] https://imgur.com/a/p9FJ9

 Thank you!
 --
   With regards,
 Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622

 Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
>author,
 and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the
>author
 might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.


 On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Denis Magda 
>wrote:
 > Cos,
 >
 > The screenshot was not attached. Could you share it some other
>way
 (google drive, etc.)? I’ve never seen any commercial on the site.
 >
 > —
 > Denis
 >
 >> On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Konstantin Boudnik 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> I don't see an issue with node version either.
 >>
 >> Just one more, and it might be slightly irrelevant, issue
>though... I
 looked at the Ignite's site and found the following ads and
>trackers (that
 are indeed getting disabled by my browser).
 >> Why are googleads or doubleclick are permitted?
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> Thanks,
 >>   Cos
 >>
 >>
 >> --
 >>   With regards,
 >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
 >> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
 >>
 >> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
>author,
 and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the
>author might
 be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
 >>
 >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
 dsetrak...@apache.org > wrote:
 >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
 voze...@gridgain.com >
 >> wrote:
 >>
 >> > Folks,
 >> >
 >> > Can we add version of current node to web request? This way we
>will
 better
 >> > understand version distribution, what might help us with
>certain API
 >> > update/deprecate decisions
 >> > E.g. http://ignite.apache.org/latest.cgi=2.2.0 <
 http://ignite.apache.org/latest.cgi=2.2.0>
 >>
 >>
 >> Vladimir, I personally do not see a problem with that, as
>sending the
 >> current version to the update checker seems very innocent to me.
>At
 the
 >> same time, it will allow us to examine the usage of each release
>and
 make
 >> decisions about dropping backward compatibility or spotting bugs
>for a
 >> certain release.
 >>
 >> Cos, Raul, any thoughts?
 >>
 >>
 >> >
 >> >
 >> > Vladimir.
 >> >
 >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
 dsetrak...@apache.org >
 >> > wrote:
 >> >
 >> > > I think it is safe to assume at this point that everyone is
>in
 general
 >> > > agreement, since there are no active objections.
 >> > >
 >> > > I have filed a ticket for the 2.3 release. Let's try to make
>it
 happen:
 >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6305 <
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6305>
 >> > >
 >> > > D.
 >> > >
 >> > > On Sat, Aug 26,

Re: Logical Cache Documented

2017-09-30 Thread dsetrakyan 
Why not? Obviously compression would have to be enabled per group, not per 
cache.

⁣D.​

On Sep 29, 2017, 10:50 PM, at 10:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov  
wrote:
>And it will continue hitting us in future. For example, when data
>compression is implemented, for logical caches compression rate will be
>poor, as it would be impossbile to build efficient dictionaries in
>mixed
>data pages.
>
>On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
>wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Honesly, to me logical caches appears to be a dirty shortcut to
>mitigate
>> some inefficient internal implementation. Why can't we merge
>partition maps
>> in runtime? This should not be a problem for context-independent
>affinity
>> functions (e.g. RendezvousAffinityFunction). From user perspective
>logic
>> caches feature is:
>> 1) Bad API. One cannot define group configuration. All you can do is
>to
>> define group name on cache lavel and hope that nobody started another
>cache
>> in the same group with different configuration before.
>> 2) Performance impact for scans, as you have to iterate over mixed
>data.
>>
>> Couldn't we fix partition map problem without cache groups?
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Denis Magda 
>wrote:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> Another question. Does this capability enabled by default? If yes,
>how do
>>> we decide which group a cache goes to?
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>> > On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Denis Magda 
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Igniters,
>>> >
>>> > I’ve put on paper the feature from the subj:
>>> > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/logical-caches <
>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/logical-caches>
>>> >
>>> > Sam, will appreciate if you read through it and confirm I
>explained the
>>> topic 100% technically correct.
>>> >
>>> > However, are there any negative impacts of having logical caches?
>This
>>> page has “Possible Impacts” section unfilled:
>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Logical+Caches
><
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Logical+Caches>
>>> >
>>> > —
>>> > Denis
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: Logical Cache Documented

2017-09-30 Thread dsetrakyan 
Vova, cache groups almost never need to be touched by users. They should be 
configured automatically. To my knowledge,  by default all caches fall into the 
default group (please confirm).

As far as scans, the performance should not be affected, as we now store  
entries in B+trees and the data is sorted by cache. We only iterate over the 
data in a specific cache.

⁣D.​

On Sep 29, 2017, 10:48 PM, at 10:48 PM, Vladimir Ozerov  
wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Honesly, to me logical caches appears to be a dirty shortcut to
>mitigate
>some inefficient internal implementation. Why can't we merge partition
>maps
>in runtime? This should not be a problem for context-independent
>affinity
>functions (e.g. RendezvousAffinityFunction). From user perspective
>logic
>caches feature is:
>1) Bad API. One cannot define group configuration. All you can do is to
>define group name on cache lavel and hope that nobody started another
>cache
>in the same group with different configuration before.
>2) Performance impact for scans, as you have to iterate over mixed
>data.
>
>Couldn't we fix partition map problem without cache groups?
>
>On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> Another question. Does this capability enabled by default? If yes,
>how do
>> we decide which group a cache goes to?
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>> > On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> >
>> > Igniters,
>> >
>> > I’ve put on paper the feature from the subj:
>> > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/logical-caches <
>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/logical-caches>
>> >
>> > Sam, will appreciate if you read through it and confirm I explained
>the
>> topic 100% technically correct.
>> >
>> > However, are there any negative impacts of having logical caches?
>This
>> page has “Possible Impacts” section unfilled:
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Logical+Caches <
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Logical+Caches>
>> >
>> > —
>> > Denis
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite Update Checker

2017-09-30 Thread Prachi Garg 
Yes, I see in dev tools that calls to googleads and doubleclick are made
from Youtube.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> I also did a global search on the Ignite website, but didn't find anything
> for googleads or doubleclick.
>
>
> Could you remove and add screencasts block temporary on your local
> deployment to see if the calls to commercial scripts reported by Cos appear
> in your Chrome dev toolkit?
>
> —
> Denis
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:56 PM, Prachi Garg  wrote:
>
> We use the following scripts -
>
> https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js - used on homepage to display
> tweets
> https://static.addtoany.com/menu/page.js - used on events page for social
> media sharing
> https://www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js
>
> I also did a global search on the Ignite website, but didn't find anything
> for googleads or doubleclick.
>
> -Prachi
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
>> That’s definitely worthwhile checking. Prachi, as the one who embedded
>> the screencast, would you check the theory?
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Cos, Denis.
>>
>> I think it is because we have embedded videos (on YouTube).
>> Mauricio or Denis, please check my idea.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Konstantin Boudnik 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry guys - I neglected the fact that our lists don't permit
>>> attachments. I have put the screenshot to an external server [1]
>>>
>>> [1] https://imgur.com/a/p9FJ9
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>> --
>>>   With regards,
>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>>> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
>>> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>>> > Cos,
>>> >
>>> > The screenshot was not attached. Could you share it some other way
>>> (google drive, etc.)? I’ve never seen any commercial on the site.
>>> >
>>> > —
>>> > Denis
>>> >
>>> >> On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Konstantin Boudnik 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't see an issue with node version either.
>>> >>
>>> >> Just one more, and it might be slightly irrelevant, issue though... I
>>> looked at the Ignite's site and found the following ads and trackers (that
>>> are indeed getting disabled by my browser).
>>> >> Why are googleads or doubleclick are permitted?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>   Cos
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >>   With regards,
>>> >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>>> >> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>>> >>
>>> >> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author might
>>> be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrak...@apache.org > wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>>> voze...@gridgain.com >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Folks,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Can we add version of current node to web request? This way we will
>>> better
>>> >> > understand version distribution, what might help us with certain API
>>> >> > update/deprecate decisions
>>> >> > E.g. http://ignite.apache.org/latest.cgi=2.2.0 <
>>> http://ignite.apache.org/latest.cgi=2.2.0>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Vladimir, I personally do not see a problem with that, as sending the
>>> >> current version to the update checker seems very innocent to me. At
>>> the
>>> >> same time, it will allow us to examine the usage of each release and
>>> make
>>> >> decisions about dropping backward compatibility or spotting bugs for a
>>> >> certain release.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cos, Raul, any thoughts?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Vladimir.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrak...@apache.org >
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > I think it is safe to assume at this point that everyone is in
>>> general
>>> >> > > agreement, since there are no active objections.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I have filed a ticket for the 2.3 release. Let's try to make it
>>> happen:
>>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6305 <
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6305>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > D.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> >> > dsetrak...@apache.org >
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Raúl Kripalani <
>>> raul@evosent.com >
>>> >> > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >> Yeah, I