Re: Logical Cache Documented

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

Re: Logical Cache Documented

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

Re: Logical Cache Documented

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: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite Update Checker

> 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 >

Logical Cache Documented

Igniters, I’ve put on paper the feature from the subj: 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite Update Checker

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

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > I agree with Vladimir here. I always have some awkward feelings when > explaining our optimistic transactions behavior. Let's fix it now. > In that case, let's try to come up with a cleaner proposal. The new design has

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Dima, > > I doubt you ever heard from users "we need snapshot isolation" because this > is implementation detail, rather than public behavior :-) > Believe me, I have. People want to make sure that the data is not

Apache Ignite talks in Paris the next week

Igniters, If you reside or stroll around Paris on next Monday or Tuesday drop by two locations to get more insights on how to use Ignite together with Spark and Hadoop. More details are here: 1. Hadoop and Spark acceleration with Ignite:

Re: welcome

Hi Alexey, done and welcome to the Ignite community! A piece of useful information for you. Please subscribe to both dev and user lists: https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite Update Checker

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

Re: Support for packed int and long primitives in raw binary API

Alexey, Any reason why you propose this only for raw data? I think this should be an option for binary marshaller (probably per type). If we also add special methods to Binarylizable, then they should be applied to both raw and non-raw data. BTW, there are couple other tickets regarding this,

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

I agree with Vladimir here. I always have some awkward feelings when explaining our optimistic transactions behavior. Let's fix it now. --Yakov

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2781: IGNITE-6520: Using actual AffinityReadyFuture res...

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2781 IGNITE-6520: Using actual AffinityReadyFuture result. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2780: Ignite 6123

GitHub user oignatenko opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2780 Ignite 6123 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-6123 Alternatively you can review and apply

Re: Persistence per memory policy configuration

Guys, I've attached new configuration design draft to the ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6030 Please, take a look. Right now is the best time to change name of any property. And question about metrics: are we going to rename MemoryMetrics and

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

Dima, I doubt you ever heard from users "we need snapshot isolation" because this is implementation detail, rather than public behavior :-) I already explained what we are fixing - broken TX API. 6 possible modes, 5 real modes, 2 broken modes (OPT+RC, OPT+RR), and only *two (!!!)* modes which are

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2779: IGNITE-6437: DataStructure can not be obtained on...

GitHub user zstan opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2779 IGNITE-6437: DataStructure can not be obtained on client if it is cre… …ated on server node You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

I still have a feeling that we are fixing something that was not broken. I have never heard from any user that they need to do both, blocking and non-blocking reads in the same transaction. The only requests I heard so far are: - snapshot isolation - read-only transactions D. On Fri, Sep 29,

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

Dima, My point was that we have a number of read-only methods and I do not want to pollute base cache API with their counterparts (get, getAll, getEntry, getEntries). Another point is that "pessimistic" reads is relatively rare use case comparing to "optimistic". This is why "with" approach looks

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > You can mix both "optimistic" and "pessimistic" reads in a single > transaction. This is one of the main points of proposed API. Normally users > do not define blocking behavior on TX level. They do that on

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6534) Configure NotNull fields with annotations

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-6534: -- Summary: Configure NotNull fields with annotations Key: IGNITE-6534 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6534 Project: Ignite Issue Type:

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

You can mix both "optimistic" and "pessimistic" reads in a single transaction. This is one of the main points of proposed API. Normally users do not define blocking behavior on TX level. They do that on per-operation level. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6533) Jdbc Client friver connection creation could hang if client node can't start in parallel

Evgenii Zhuravlev created IGNITE-6533: - Summary: Jdbc Client friver connection creation could hang if client node can't start in parallel Key: IGNITE-6533 URL:

Re: Support for packed int and long primitives in raw binary API

Dmitriy, Not arrays, just primitives. Using special binary representation, ints and longs can be represented by 1-9 bytes, depending on their cardinality. I want to add such implementation in raw binary API to help implementing custom serializers. 2017-09-29 15:12 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan

Re: Issues if -Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true is not set

Hm... I am not sure I understand why. But in any case, to the list, we should provide proper error messages suggesting to change this property. Do you agree? D. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > If user has Ignite deployment and does not want Ignite

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Dima, > > IgniteCache.withReadForUpdate() :-) > And how is it better than a pessimistic transaction with read?

Re: Support for packed int and long primitives in raw binary API

Alexey, are you talking about arrays of ints and longs? On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Alexei Scherbakov < alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > Guys, > > I notices we do not have support for packed ints and longs in raw binary > API [1] [2] > > Such methods are essential for implementing

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2778: ignite-6485 Binary marshalling with writeReplace/...

GitHub user agura opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2778 ignite-6485 Binary marshalling with writeReplace/readResolve fixed You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/agura/incubator-ignite

welcome

Hello Ignite Community! My name is Alexey Popov. I want to contribute to Apache Ignite. My Jira ID alexey.tank2 Thanks!

Support for packed int and long primitives in raw binary API

Guys, I notices we do not have support for packed ints and longs in raw binary API [1] [2] Such methods are essential for implementing efficient custom compression schemes. Their addition can simplify implementing custom serializers for the cases then default binary marshaller is not enough,

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2777: IGNITE-6358 JDBC thick: support multiple SQL stat...

GitHub user tledkov-gridgain opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2777 IGNITE-6358 JDBC thick: support multiple SQL statements You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2764: GG-12826 Backport fixes for NPE in GridDhtPartiti...

Github user alamar closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2764 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2765: GG-12821 IGNITE-4642: Added "enforceJoinOrder" fl...

Github user alamar closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2765 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2724: IGNITE-6473 Introduce a constant of default persi...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2724 ---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6532) Introduce preallocation in LFS files to avoid high fragmentation on filesystem level

Ivan Rakov created IGNITE-6532: -- Summary: Introduce preallocation in LFS files to avoid high fragmentation on filesystem level Key: IGNITE-6532 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6532

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2771: IGNITE-5784 .NET: QueryIndex.InlineSize

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2771 ---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6531) Need to add a 'required' field to the SpringResource annotation.

joungdal.nam created IGNITE-6531: Summary: Need to add a 'required' field to the SpringResource annotation. Key: IGNITE-6531 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6531 Project: Ignite

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite Update Checker

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