IgniteCacheTestSuite3 on TeamCity

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

Re: DiscoverySpi based on Apache ZooKeeper

t;> >> It's not to say that Zookeeper can'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 &g

Re: DiscoverySpi based on Apache ZooKeeper

> > D. > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Currently I'm working on implementation of DiscoverySpi based on Apache > > ZooKeeper (ZookeeperDiscoverySpi) and want to share results of this wor

DiscoverySpi based on Apache ZooKeeper

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: -

Re: Logical Cache Documented

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?

Re: MVCC configuration

Yes, we'll add this validation. On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > > Can caches within the same group have different MVCC configur

Re: MVCC configuration

gt; > single transaction? If yes, what is the contract? 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 <sboi...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > > >

Re: MVCC configuration

ld be out of scope as well for > 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 <sboi...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Folks, thank you for feedback, I want to summarize some decisions: > &

Re: MVCC configuration

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

Re: MVCC configuration

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 <sboi...@grid

Re: MVCC configuration

gt; > 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. > > > 2017-09-

Re: MVCC configuration

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 =) >

MVCC configuration

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:

Re: ContinuousQueryWithTransformer implementation questions - 2

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. >

Re: .Net client call tx,close in other thread

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

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

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

Re: IGNITE-5123 Review

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC3

+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

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

that node simply overrides 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

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

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC2

+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

Re: Testing of backward compatibility in Ignite

es at Ignite will 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 <sboi...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Vyac

Re: Testing of backward compatibility in Ignite

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

Re: golang client for 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

Re: Request for contributor permissions

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

Re: More JIRA rights

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- >

Re: TeamCity triggers change proposal

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

Persistence enabled for all caches

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!

Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.marshaller and make it no-op!

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

Re: Only lateAffinityAssignment for 2.1

Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5446. Thanks On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Now affinity version is switched

Only lateAffinityAssignment for 2.1

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

Persistent Store and IgniteServices

Hi guys, If persistent store feature is enabled, will IgniteServices survive cluster restrart? Thanks!

Re: Persistent Store Stabilization for release

passing now. > > 2017-06-02 10:20 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com>: > > > Guys, > > > > I see some tests in PDS suite fail with message > > "junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: only for one run, must be removed > > soon". We

Re: Persistent Store Stabilization for release

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

Re: contention on DataStructure creation/removing

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!

Re: Ignite 2.0 TeamCity Run configurations

shows not everyone 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 <sboi...@gridgain.com>: > > >

Re: Ignite 2.0 TeamCity Run configurations

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

Re: [VOTE] Accept Contribution of Ignite Persistent Store

+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

Re: IGNITE-1084 is ready for review

is issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1084 > resolved > ? > > Vadim Opolski > > 2017-04-19 14:06 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com>: > >> Vadim, >> >> I found that real cause of IGNITE-1084 is IGNITE-4760, so suggested test >> fi

Re: IGNITE-4447 ready for review

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

Re: IGNITE-4437 Make sure data structures do not use outTx call

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. >

Re: joining exchange

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

Re: Proper collocation of computations and data.

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 <

Re: IGNITE-1084 is ready for review

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

Re: IGNITE-1084 is ready for review

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

Re: Page Memory behavior with default memory policy

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

Re: IGNITE - 4760 ready for review

apache/ignite/pull/1768 ? > > Is this fix actual for hibernate5 module? > > Vadim Opolski > > 2017-04-11 13:40 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com>: > >> Thanks Vadim, I'll try to do review today. >> >> Semyon >> >> On Mon, Apr 10, 201

Re: IGNITE-1794 is ready for review

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

Re: IGNITE - 4760 : added test

:00 > Subject: Re: IGNITE - 4760 : working in hibernate module > To: dev@ignite.apache.org > Cc: Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>, Semyon Boikov < > sboi...@gridgain.com> > > > Hello everyone! > > I added some change to method threadLocalForCac

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Okay. Will do it shortly. > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Alexander, > >> > >> I see there are conflicts again,

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

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

Re: issue with Hibernate 2L cache region factory ignite-1.8

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,

Re: IGNITE-3727： why did not merge into the 1.8 version?

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 had a

Re: IGNITE-4492

It is closed because I just merged fix (rev 8e12513efb24cc6df1da0968560ac932544ee68d). Thanks! On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:16 PM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com > wrote: > asfgit <https://github.com/asfgit> has closed my PR for somehow > > вт, 14 февр. 2017 г. в

Re: IGNITE-4492

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

Re: IGNITE-817: [Test] Disabled tests of GridCacheOffHeapTest

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. > >

Re: Make async API great again

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

Re: Explicit lock hang

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 >

Re: IGNITE-3727： why did not merge into the 1.8 version?

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

Re: IGNITE-4157 design proposal

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

Re: IGNITE-3722 Cached in a file text must be written with UTF-8 charset, not default

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 >

Re: Deadlock during Client Continuous Query deserialization

Here is JIRA issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3606 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I reproduced this issue, thank you for test! After quick debugging It > seems that this is some problem with Ignite back

Re: Apache Ignite - New Release

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 <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Sur

Re: Apache Ignite - New Release

, Jul 22, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Today I merged into master 'distributed join' implementation - > > https://issu

Re: "ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException" happened when doing qurey in version 1.6.0

Yes, I'm working on it, updated ticket. On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > We already have similar issue reproduced in

Re: "ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException" happened when doing qurey in version 1.6.0

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

Distributed joins for JDBC

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

Re: Apache Ignite - New Release

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

Re: New contributor: Support primitive type names in QueryEntity (IGNITE-3399)

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

Re: Rework "withAsync" in Apache 2.0

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).

Re: ignite-2310

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

Remaining distributed joins issues

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

Re: Maven conflicts within ignite-core from duplicated classes

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.6.0 RC1

+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

Re: Ignite 1.6 release timelines

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 >

Re: Cleaning internal thread locals

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

Re: Deprecate GridFunc

+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

Re: API for asynchronous execution.

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

Re: Transformers in SCAN queries

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,

Re: hanging locks

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 <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks Semyon! > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Semy

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

+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

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

Just merged single get optimizations (improvements in the last benchmarks run: ~10% for atomic-put-get, ~5% for tx-put-get).

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

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

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

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

Re: withKeepIgniteObject behavior

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

Optimistic/serializable transactions implementation

Hello, I'm working on new implementation for optimistic/serializable transaction mode (current implementation is inefficient and have bugs). This mode is supposed to be used when concurrent transactions do not update the same keys, in this case transactions can be executed more efficiently, but

Re: Optimistic/serializable transactions implementation

so it is not clear for me, how transaction order is assigned / > calculated? > If I start transaction t1 on none n1 and t2 on node n2, how it will be > calculated? > > Thanks. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > &

Re: Optimistic/serializable transactions implementation

> > is starvation possible here? > E.g. there are two nodes with GUIDs A and B. What will happen in the > following case: > 1) TX (A, 1) started and locked the key; > 2) TX (B, 1) started and waiting for lock; > 3) TX (A, 2) started and waiting for lock; > 4) TX (A, 1) released the lock. > 5) Who

Re: Optimistic/serializable transactions implementation

We did not decided yet exactly by which attribute transactions should be ordered, but logically it is better when wins older transaction or transaction having more keys. On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > Just one more question: > > "-

Re: vert.x integration

I'm working on cache issues blocking vert.x integration, there is one more issue reproducing in vert.x tests: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1534. Hopefully these issues will be fixed within the next few days. On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan

Re: QueryProcessor and CacheProcessor start order

m, I agree. Please try fix components start order and run tests. > >> > >> -- > >> Yakov Zhdanov, Director R > >> *GridGain Systems* > >> www.gridgain.com > >> > >> 2015-09-03 12:40 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com>: &g

QueryProcessor and CacheProcessor start order

Does anybody remember why QueryProcessor is started before CacheProcessor? With this order cache processor can be stopped at the moment when query request is processed, and this causes sporadic errors like NPE (I see this from time to time in IgniteCacheQueryNodeRestartSelfTest). Looks like

Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName

marshalling should stop. Any other opinions? --Yakov 2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov akuznet...@gridgain.com: Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker to node attributes) ? On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov sboi