Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Yakov Zhdanov]

Well, then let's leave it as is for now.

--Yakov

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Yakov,

For example:
http://pzemtsov.github.io/2017/07/23/the-slow-currenttimemillis.html

>>> We’ve learned that the slow execution of currentTimeMillis() was caused
by two factors:
>>> - JVM using gettimeofday() instead of clock_gettime()
>>> - gettimeofday() being very slow if HPET time source is used.

You mat get slow currentTimeMillis() - up to 1mcs - unless you set proper
time source.


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Yakov Zhdanov  wrote:

> As Dmitry P mentioned System.currentTimeMillis() is JVM intrinsic.
> Moreover, there is a daemon thread that updates the internal value which
> will not be needed after the change.
>
> If we remove U.currentTimeMillis() code will become more clear and
> consistent. Why we think that we can implement this particular timer better
> than JVM developers?
>
> Vladmir, can you please share a benchmark that will show the problems? If
> it will then it will be a strong argument to keep the current
> implementation.
>
> --Yakov
>

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Evgeniy Stanilovskiy]

I assume that Vladimir mention this mesurements:
https://shipilev.net/blog/2014/nanotrusting-nanotime/
can we simple measure with JMH x86 and arm our realization vs system call?


As Dmitry P mentioned System.currentTimeMillis() is JVM intrinsic.
Moreover, there is a daemon thread that updates the internal value which
will not be needed after the change.

If we remove U.currentTimeMillis() code will become more clear and
consistent. Why we think that we can implement this particular timer  
better

than JVM developers?

Vladmir, can you please share a benchmark that will show the problems? If
it will then it will be a strong argument to keep the current
implementation.

--Yakov

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Yakov Zhdanov]

As Dmitry P mentioned System.currentTimeMillis() is JVM intrinsic.
Moreover, there is a daemon thread that updates the internal value which
will not be needed after the change.

If we remove U.currentTimeMillis() code will become more clear and
consistent. Why we think that we can implement this particular timer better
than JVM developers?

Vladmir, can you please share a benchmark that will show the problems? If
it will then it will be a strong argument to keep the current
implementation.

--Yakov

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Alexey Kuznetsov]

Nikolay,

As far as I understand U.currentTimeMillis() should be used where time is
not a major value (metrics for example).

But in test with transaction (that you are mentioned) we should use
System.currentTimeMillis().

In general we should think about U.currentTimeMillis() and avoid it usage
in places where result of this function could be compared with some value.

Vova, make sense?

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Николай Ижиков 
wrote:

> Dmitry,
>
> > So, if you change the call to System.currentTimeMillis(), the test
> passes?
>
> Yes
>
> > I would propose to either increase TX_TIMEOUT or sleep multiplier to make
> test more reliable.
>
> Yes, I fix test in that way.
>
> For me the goal of this discussion is to understand reasons to keep current
> method implementation.
>
>
>
>
> 2017-08-09 15:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>
> > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Николай Ижиков 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > > As far as I can understand behaviour of U.currentTimeMillis() breaks
> > > transaction timeout test:
> > >
> >
> > So, if you change the call to System.currentTimeMillis(), the test
> passes?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nikolay Izhikov
> nizhikov@gmail.com
>



-- 
Alexey Kuznetsov

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Vladimir Ozerov]

In short, the reason is avoiding potential performance problems.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Николай Ижиков 
wrote:

> Dmitry,
>
> > So, if you change the call to System.currentTimeMillis(), the test
> passes?
>
> Yes
>
> > I would propose to either increase TX_TIMEOUT or sleep multiplier to make
> test more reliable.
>
> Yes, I fix test in that way.
>
> For me the goal of this discussion is to understand reasons to keep current
> method implementation.
>
>
>
>
> 2017-08-09 15:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>
> > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Николай Ижиков 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > > As far as I can understand behaviour of U.currentTimeMillis() breaks
> > > transaction timeout test:
> > >
> >
> > So, if you change the call to System.currentTimeMillis(), the test
> passes?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nikolay Izhikov
> nizhikov@gmail.com
>

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Николай Ижиков]

Dmitry,

> So, if you change the call to System.currentTimeMillis(), the test passes?

Yes

> I would propose to either increase TX_TIMEOUT or sleep multiplier to make
test more reliable.

Yes, I fix test in that way.

For me the goal of this discussion is to understand reasons to keep current
method implementation.




2017-08-09 15:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Николай Ижиков 
> wrote:
>
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > As far as I can understand behaviour of U.currentTimeMillis() breaks
> > transaction timeout test:
> >
>
> So, if you change the call to System.currentTimeMillis(), the test passes?
>



-- 
Nikolay Izhikov
nizhikov@gmail.com

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Николай Ижиков 
wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> As far as I can understand behaviour of U.currentTimeMillis() breaks
> transaction timeout test:
>

So, if you change the call to System.currentTimeMillis(), the test passes?

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Vladimir Ozerov]

I would propose to either increase TX_TIMEOUT or sleep multiplier to make
test more reliable.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Николай Ижиков <nizhikov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> As far as I can understand behaviour of U.currentTimeMillis() breaks
> transaction timeout test:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963
>
> IgniteOptimisticTxSuspendResumeTest#testTxTimeoutOnSuspend :
>
> ```
> final Transaction tx = ignite.transactions().txStart(OPTIMISTIC,
> isolation,
> TX_TIMEOUT, 0);
>
> cache.put(1, 1);
>
> Thread.sleep(TX_TIMEOUT * 2);
>
> GridTestUtils.assertThrowsWithCause(new Callable() {
> @Override public Object call() throws Exception {
> tx.suspend();
>
> return null;
> }
> }, TransactionTimeoutException.class);
> ```
> Timeout checked like that:
>
> IgniteTxAdapter#remainingTime
>
> ```
> @Override public long remainingTime() {
> if (timeout() <= 0)
> return 0;
>
> long timeLeft = timeout() - (U.currentTimeMillis() - startTime());
>
> return timeLeft <= 0 ? -1 : timeLeft;
>
> }
>
> ```
>
>
> 2017-08-09 15:26 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > Are you really suggesting change the product for newcomer needs? This is
> > not an argument for the change. Can someone explain me what is currently
> > broken from product's perspective? Yes, we can get stale values for some
> > time, we know that. Does it break something?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to Nikolay, this is very often question from newcomers.
> > > It is not clear that current* method may return outdated value from
> some
> > > moment in past.
> > >
> > > Nikolay, how long outdated value can be returned by method?
> > >
> > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 15:00, Николай Ижиков <nizhikov@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Vladimir,
> > > >
> > > > > There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the
> > > > moment.
> > > >
> > > > I think we can't rely on the return value for time measurement.
> > > > Is it true? Is it OK for you?
> > > >
> > > > It very counterintuitive for me as newcomer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-09 14:55 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > You cannot check it with benchmarks, because behavior of this
> method
> > > will
> > > > > vary between different JVMs, OSes and hardware. It can be different
> > > even
> > > > > with the same OS depending on it's settings. Again - let's just
> avoid
> > > > > unnecessary work. There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis()
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir, could we check it using benchmarks? Internet contains a
> > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > > articles about this issue. But do we know if it is still actual
> for
> > > new
> > > > > > VMs?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:50, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list.
> > This
> > > > > means
> > > > > > > on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for
> > > > > > U.currentTimeMillis
> > > > > > > () ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you also please check if system.nanoTime /
> > > system.currentTimeMs
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you
> > > > create
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > PR, I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check
> if
> > > > issue
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > still reprodacible.
> > > > > > >
> &

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Николай Ижиков]

Vladimir,

As far as I can understand behaviour of U.currentTimeMillis() breaks
transaction timeout test:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963

IgniteOptimisticTxSuspendResumeTest#testTxTimeoutOnSuspend :

```
final Transaction tx = ignite.transactions().txStart(OPTIMISTIC, isolation,
TX_TIMEOUT, 0);

cache.put(1, 1);

Thread.sleep(TX_TIMEOUT * 2);

GridTestUtils.assertThrowsWithCause(new Callable() {
@Override public Object call() throws Exception {
tx.suspend();

return null;
}
}, TransactionTimeoutException.class);
```
Timeout checked like that:

IgniteTxAdapter#remainingTime

```
@Override public long remainingTime() {
if (timeout() <= 0)
return 0;

long timeLeft = timeout() - (U.currentTimeMillis() - startTime());

return timeLeft <= 0 ? -1 : timeLeft;

}

```


2017-08-09 15:26 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:

> Guys,
>
> Are you really suggesting change the product for newcomer needs? This is
> not an argument for the change. Can someone explain me what is currently
> broken from product's perspective? Yes, we can get stale values for some
> time, we know that. Does it break something?
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to Nikolay, this is very often question from newcomers.
> > It is not clear that current* method may return outdated value from some
> > moment in past.
> >
> > Nikolay, how long outdated value can be returned by method?
> >
> > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 15:00, Николай Ижиков <nizhikov@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > > > There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the
> > > moment.
> > >
> > > I think we can't rely on the return value for time measurement.
> > > Is it true? Is it OK for you?
> > >
> > > It very counterintuitive for me as newcomer.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-08-09 14:55 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > You cannot check it with benchmarks, because behavior of this method
> > will
> > > > vary between different JVMs, OSes and hardware. It can be different
> > even
> > > > with the same OS depending on it's settings. Again - let's just avoid
> > > > unnecessary work. There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis()
> at
> > > the
> > > > moment.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vladimir, could we check it using benchmarks? Internet contains a
> lot
> > > of
> > > > > articles about this issue. But do we know if it is still actual for
> > new
> > > > > VMs?
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:50, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list.
> This
> > > > means
> > > > > > on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for
> > > > > U.currentTimeMillis
> > > > > > () ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you also please check if system.nanoTime /
> > system.currentTimeMs
> > > > can
> > > > > > fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you
> > > create
> > > > a
> > > > > > PR, I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if
> > > issue
> > > > is
> > > > > > still reprodacible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an
> old
> > > > > heritage.
> > > > > >> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I
> > > agree
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file
> a
> > > > ticket
> > > > > >> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis().
> > > Sounds
> > > > > >> good?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you
> that
> > > > > >> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for
> > > > > mentioned
> > > > > >> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine
> > that
> > > > > most
> > > > > >> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make
> > Ignite's
> > > > > >> timeout
> > > > > >> machinery fail.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime()
> at
> > > some
> > > > > >> point.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --Yakov
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nikolay Izhikov
> > > nizhikov@gmail.com
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Nikolay Izhikov
nizhikov@gmail.com

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Guys,

Are you really suggesting change the product for newcomer needs? This is
not an argument for the change. Can someone explain me what is currently
broken from product's perspective? Yes, we can get stale values for some
time, we know that. Does it break something?

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to Nikolay, this is very often question from newcomers.
> It is not clear that current* method may return outdated value from some
> moment in past.
>
> Nikolay, how long outdated value can be returned by method?
>
> ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 15:00, Николай Ижиков <nizhikov@gmail.com>:
>
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > > There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the
> > moment.
> >
> > I think we can't rely on the return value for time measurement.
> > Is it true? Is it OK for you?
> >
> > It very counterintuitive for me as newcomer.
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-09 14:55 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > You cannot check it with benchmarks, because behavior of this method
> will
> > > vary between different JVMs, OSes and hardware. It can be different
> even
> > > with the same OS depending on it's settings. Again - let's just avoid
> > > unnecessary work. There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at
> > the
> > > moment.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vladimir, could we check it using benchmarks? Internet contains a lot
> > of
> > > > articles about this issue. But do we know if it is still actual for
> new
> > > > VMs?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:50, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list. This
> > > means
> > > > > on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for
> > > > U.currentTimeMillis
> > > > > () ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you also please check if system.nanoTime /
> system.currentTimeMs
> > > can
> > > > > fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you
> > create
> > > a
> > > > > PR, I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if
> > issue
> > > is
> > > > > still reprodacible.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old
> > > > heritage.
> > > > >> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I
> > agree
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a
> > > ticket
> > > > >> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis().
> > Sounds
> > > > >> good?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
> > > > >> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for
> > > > mentioned
> > > > >> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine
> that
> > > > most
> > > > >> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make
> Ignite's
> > > > >> timeout
> > > > >> machinery fail.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at
> > some
> > > > >> point.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --Yakov
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nikolay Izhikov
> > nizhikov@gmail.com
> >
>

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Dmitry Pavlov]

+1 to Nikolay, this is very often question from newcomers.
It is not clear that current* method may return outdated value from some
moment in past.

Nikolay, how long outdated value can be returned by method?

ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 15:00, Николай Ижиков <nizhikov@gmail.com>:

> Vladimir,
>
> > There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the
> moment.
>
> I think we can't rely on the return value for time measurement.
> Is it true? Is it OK for you?
>
> It very counterintuitive for me as newcomer.
>
>
> 2017-08-09 14:55 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > You cannot check it with benchmarks, because behavior of this method will
> > vary between different JVMs, OSes and hardware. It can be different even
> > with the same OS depending on it's settings. Again - let's just avoid
> > unnecessary work. There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at
> the
> > moment.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vladimir, could we check it using benchmarks? Internet contains a lot
> of
> > > articles about this issue. But do we know if it is still actual for new
> > > VMs?
> > >
> > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:50, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list. This
> > means
> > > > on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
> > > >
> > > > Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for
> > > U.currentTimeMillis
> > > > () ?
> > > >
> > > > Could you also please check if system.nanoTime / system.currentTimeMs
> > can
> > > > fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you
> create
> > a
> > > > PR, I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if
> issue
> > is
> > > > still reprodacible.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > >> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old
> > > heritage.
> > > >> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I
> agree
> > > >> that
> > > >> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a
> > ticket
> > > >> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis().
> Sounds
> > > >> good?
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
> > > >> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for
> > > mentioned
> > > >> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that
> > > most
> > > >> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's
> > > >> timeout
> > > >> machinery fail.
> > > >>
> > > >> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at
> some
> > > >> point.
> > > >>
> > > >> --Yakov
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nikolay Izhikov
> nizhikov@gmail.com
>

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Николай Ижиков <nizhikov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> > There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the
> moment.
>
> I think we can't rely on the return value for time measurement.
> Is it true? Is it OK for you?
>
> It very counterintuitive for me as newcomer.
>

I agree with Vladimir. There is nothing broken, yet we are trying to fix
something. However, we are definitely running a risk of breaking something,
if we "fix" it. I would leave this method alone.

Nikolai, if you believe that the method is not reliable, write a test that
will demonstrate it.


>
> 2017-08-09 14:55 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > You cannot check it with benchmarks, because behavior of this method will
> > vary between different JVMs, OSes and hardware. It can be different even
> > with the same OS depending on it's settings. Again - let's just avoid
> > unnecessary work. There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at
> the
> > moment.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vladimir, could we check it using benchmarks? Internet contains a lot
> of
> > > articles about this issue. But do we know if it is still actual for new
> > > VMs?
> > >
> > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:50, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list. This
> > means
> > > > on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
> > > >
> > > > Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for
> > > U.currentTimeMillis
> > > > () ?
> > > >
> > > > Could you also please check if system.nanoTime / system.currentTimeMs
> > can
> > > > fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you
> create
> > a
> > > > PR, I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if
> issue
> > is
> > > > still reprodacible.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > >> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old
> > > heritage.
> > > >> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I
> agree
> > > >> that
> > > >> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a
> > ticket
> > > >> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis().
> Sounds
> > > >> good?
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
> > > >> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for
> > > mentioned
> > > >> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that
> > > most
> > > >> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's
> > > >> timeout
> > > >> machinery fail.
> > > >>
> > > >> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at
> some
> > > >> point.
> > > >>
> > > >> --Yakov
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nikolay Izhikov
> nizhikov@gmail.com
>

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Николай Ижиков]

Vladimir,

> There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the
moment.

I think we can't rely on the return value for time measurement.
Is it true? Is it OK for you?

It very counterintuitive for me as newcomer.


2017-08-09 14:55 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:

> You cannot check it with benchmarks, because behavior of this method will
> vary between different JVMs, OSes and hardware. It can be different even
> with the same OS depending on it's settings. Again - let's just avoid
> unnecessary work. There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the
> moment.
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Vladimir, could we check it using benchmarks? Internet contains a lot of
> > articles about this issue. But do we know if it is still actual for new
> > VMs?
> >
> > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:50, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list. This
> means
> > > on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
> > >
> > > Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for
> > U.currentTimeMillis
> > > () ?
> > >
> > > Could you also please check if system.nanoTime / system.currentTimeMs
> can
> > > fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you create
> a
> > > PR, I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if issue
> is
> > > still reprodacible.
> > >
> > > ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old
> > heritage.
> > >> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I agree
> > >> that
> > >> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a
> ticket
> > >> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis(). Sounds
> > >> good?
> > >>
> > >> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
> > >> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for
> > mentioned
> > >> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that
> > most
> > >> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's
> > >> timeout
> > >> machinery fail.
> > >>
> > >> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at some
> > >> point.
> > >>
> > >> --Yakov
> > >>
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Nikolay Izhikov
nizhikov@gmail.com

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Николай Ижиков]

Hello, Dima.

> Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for U.currentTimeMillis
() ?

Yes, I can.

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963

I will try to make quick fix for issue without change Ignite core code.
So fix will not depend to U.currentTimeMillis() implementation.


2017-08-09 14:50 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>:

> It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list. This means
> on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
>
> Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for U.currentTimeMillis
> () ?
>
> Could you also please check if system.nanoTime / system.currentTimeMs can
> fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you create a
> PR,
> I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if issue is still
> reprodacible.
>
> ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
>
> > Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old
> heritage.
> > I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I agree
> that
> > we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a ticket
> > and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis(). Sounds
> good?
> >
> > As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
> > nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for
> mentioned
> > failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that most
> > probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's
> timeout
> > machinery fail.
> >
> > Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at some
> > point.
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>



-- 
Nikolay Izhikov
nizhikov@gmail.com

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Vladimir, could we check it using benchmarks? Internet contains a lot of
articles about this issue. But do we know if it is still actual for new VMs?

ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:50, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@gmail.com>:

> It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list. This means
> on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
>
> Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for U.currentTimeMillis
> () ?
>
> Could you also please check if system.nanoTime / system.currentTimeMs can
> fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you create a
> PR, I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if issue is
> still reprodacible.
>
> ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
>
>> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old heritage.
>> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I agree
>> that
>> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a ticket
>> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis(). Sounds
>> good?
>>
>> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
>> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for mentioned
>> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that most
>> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's
>> timeout
>> machinery fail.
>>
>> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at some
>> point.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Dmitry Pavlov]

It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list. This means
on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.

Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for U.currentTimeMillis
() ?

Could you also please check if system.nanoTime / system.currentTimeMs can
fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you create a PR,
I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if issue is still
reprodacible.

ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:

> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old heritage.
> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I agree that
> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a ticket
> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis(). Sounds good?
>
> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for mentioned
> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that most
> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's timeout
> machinery fail.
>
> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at some
> point.
>
> --Yakov
>

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Java could do some heavy stuff when doing currentTimeMillis, depending on
the platform or vendor. I remember I saw some articles about performance
issues caused by currentTimeMillis (something about high contention on
certain OS configuration). So I do not see a reason why we should remove
it. It is not very good in terms of resolution, but AFAIK we do need it
anyway.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote:

> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old heritage.
> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I agree that
> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a ticket
> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis(). Sounds good?
>
> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for mentioned
> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that most
> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's timeout
> machinery fail.
>
> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at some
> point.
>
> --Yakov
>

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Yakov Zhdanov]

Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old heritage.
I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I agree that
we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a ticket
and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis(). Sounds good?

As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for mentioned
failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that most
probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's timeout
machinery fail.

Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at some
point.

--Yakov

Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Николай Ижиков]

Addition to my previous message:

1. IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis used in current master to check
transaction timeout:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/transactions/
IgniteTxAdapter.java#L664

2. According to jdk docs System.nanoTime() is only method to measure
elapsed time
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/System.html#nanoTime().

"This method can only be used to measure elapsed time and is not related to
any other notion of system or wall-clock time"

What are reasons to use System.currentTimeMillis() in the way it used for
now?


2017-08-07 18:42 GMT+03:00 Николай Ижиков <nizhikov@gmail.com>:

> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I found unusual implementation of IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis function.
> Method is not simple proxy to System.currentTimeMillis
> Instead it read static variable which updated by dedicated thread:
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/IgniteUtils.java#L3251
>
> while (true) {
> curTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis();
>
> try {
> Thread.sleep(10);
> }
> catch (InterruptedException ignored) {
> break;
> }
> }
>
> As far as i know `Thread.sleep` is unprecise function especially under
> heavy load and on small timeout values like 10 ms.
> Seems that we get very unprecise values of currentTimeMillis.
>
> I think that can lead to difficult bugs like https://issues.apache.
> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963
>
> What is purpose of current implementation?
>
> --
> Nikolay Izhikov
> nizhikov@gmail.com
>



-- 
Nikolay Izhikov
nizhikov@gmail.com

IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis

[Николай Ижиков]

Hello, Igniters.

I found unusual implementation of IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis function.
Method is not simple proxy to System.currentTimeMillis
Instead it read static variable which updated by dedicated thread:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/IgniteUtils.java#L3251

while (true) {
curTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis();

try {
Thread.sleep(10);
}
catch (InterruptedException ignored) {
break;
}
}

As far as i know `Thread.sleep` is unprecise function especially under
heavy load and on small timeout values like 10 ms.
Seems that we get very unprecise values of currentTimeMillis.

I think that can lead to difficult bugs like
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963

What is purpose of current implementation?

-- 
Nikolay Izhikov
nizhikov@gmail.com