[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13575) Invalid blocking section in GridNioWorker and GridNioClientWorker leads to false positive blocking thread detection

Ivan Daschinskiy created IGNITE-13575: - Summary: Invalid blocking section in GridNioWorker and GridNioClientWorker leads to false positive blocking thread detection Key: IGNITE-13575 URL:

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Is it possible/reasonable to run a single vote for Ignite 2.9 and all the migrated extensions? This time. @Alex Plehanov , what do you think? If we decide to release the versions 1.0.0 of the extensions after 2.9 is out then it can last for a week or so...because we need to build, update docs,

Re: Ignite license checker rejects MIT-licensed files

Instead of using the "addDefaultLicenseMatchers" setting, we developed a practice of excluding non-Apache licenses from the checklist of the license checker. A couple of examples: - BSD license: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-13574/parent/pom.xml#L889 - Another BSD license:

Re: ignite-extenisions naming policy

Hi Petr, Since, we already released a version with the old tag I am thinking we can keep it as reference and we can follow the new naming convention for git tag from next release onwards. Regards, Saikat On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:42 AM Petr Ivanov wrote: > Hi! > > > Yes., the git tag. > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Denis, All the modules except OSGi have been migrated. Alexey is creating a separate ticket for OSGi and we can migrate the same as well. My thoughts are Apache Ignite 2.9.0 and migrated extensions 1.0.0 to be released together. I am thinking depending on the voting process and testing cycles

[MTCGA]: new failures in builds [5655051] needs to be handled

Hi Igniters, I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than welcomed to help. *Test with high flaky rate in master BinaryMetadataRegistrationInsideEntryProcessorTest.testContinuousQueryAndBinaryObjectBuilder

Ignite license checker rejects MIT-licensed files

Igniters, I was adding a missing license header to some sources that were included in our repository and found that the license checker rejects the MIT license (it's compliant with Apache 2.0 ). Take these files as an example that are

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13574) Ignite Docs: clarify licenses for some imported files

Denis A. Magda created IGNITE-13574: --- Summary: Ignite Docs: clarify licenses for some imported files Key: IGNITE-13574 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13574 Project: Ignite

Usage of BinaryObject in Spring Data Queries

Manuel Nunez, Ilya Kasnacheev, I'm working on the support of thin clients for ignite spring data integration. And I faced that in method IgniteRepositoryQuery#rowToEntity that was introduced by ticket [1], BinaryObject is used to create cache value class from SQL result row and to determine

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Saikat, Alex, Based on your inputs here, it sounds like once Ignite 2.9 gets released, all the integrations that made their way to the extensions repo [1] will get stuck in limbo for some time. What I mean here: 1. While the users will be bumping up their ignite-core, ignite-indexing, etc.

Re: Instance of IgniteClient in Multi threaded application

Also, as long as you're on Java, you can add the Ignite thick client to the comparison list. It can behave faster for your workload. - Denis On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 6:14 AM Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > It depends. The only way to tell is to measure and profile your specific > use case. > > What

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13573) Website has comments before DOCTYPE

Sebb created IGNITE-13573: - Summary: Website has comments before DOCTYPE Key: IGNITE-13573 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13573 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

Sql consistency when partition evicts.

Hi! I found recently quite surprising on the first sight behaviour. Scenario: 1. Start 2 node with indexed atomic partitioned cache with 0 backups. 2. Load sufficient amout of data (or emulate slow removal from idx) 4. Start another node. 4. Perform SELECT * FROM . Due to partition eviction,

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13572) Duplicates in select query during partition eviction.

Ivan Daschinskiy created IGNITE-13572: - Summary: Duplicates in select query during partition eviction. Key: IGNITE-13572 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13572 Project: Ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13571) Pme-free test should use 9 server nodes

Anton Vinogradov created IGNITE-13571: - Summary: Pme-free test should use 9 server nodes Key: IGNITE-13571 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13571 Project: Ignite Issue

Re: Instance of IgniteClient in Multi threaded application

It depends. The only way to tell is to measure and profile your specific use case. What I'm trying to say is: 1. Start with one instance - low complexity, low overhead. 2. If performance needs improvement, and Ignite is determined to be a bottleneck, consider trying multiple instances, this

Re: Instance of IgniteClient in Multi threaded application

Thanks Pavel, How can we categorize the high load scenarios in the case of Ignite..If my requests to Ingnite are more than 1000 per second then can i take it as a high-load or i can consider more figures for high load -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, For me, all three look quite critical as they: address a memory leak, address a usability/performance issue with no workaround, and address a regression in 2.8. If we want to limit the scope, I would still include the memory leak fix, though. Thoughts? пн, 12 окт. 2020 г. в 13:07, Alex

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

This patch [1] interesting only a deployment where clients often reconnecting (stopping/starting) to cluster. In these cases Coordinator node could fail by OOM, even the cluster did not use MVCC caches. On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:41 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky wrote: > > > without [2] and [3] we

Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

without [2] and [3] we obtain unexpected fields in index creation and as a consequence buggy sql execution and pla of course.   >Guys, > >I've found 3 more tickets which were targeted to 2.9 but merged only to the >master branch ([1], [2], [3]). >Do we need these tickets in 2.9? Are they

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, I've found 3 more tickets which were targeted to 2.9 but merged only to the master branch ([1], [2], [3]). Do we need these tickets in 2.9? Are they critical? [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12350 [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13376 [3]:

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite 2.9.0-rc2

Dear community, The vote for a new release candidate is closed, now. Vote result: Vote not passes with one -1 vote. -1 votes: - Nikolay Izhikov (binding) Vote thread: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Apache-Ignite-2-9-0-RC2-td49480.html I will create a new

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13570) Migrate OSGI module to ignite-extensions

Alexey Goncharuk created IGNITE-13570: - Summary: Migrate OSGI module to ignite-extensions Key: IGNITE-13570 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13570 Project: Ignite Issue

Re: [MTCGA]: new failures in builds [5657931] needs to be handled

Hello, Igniters. It seems, fails of Cache (Restarts) suite not related to my changes. I see a lot of failed rebalance tests. So, maybe fails related to «IGNITE-13441 Fixes for TC stabilization» changes? Alex, can you, please, take a look. [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove a Patch-file contribution approach from guides

+1 I've never seen this patchway in action nor did I knew about its existence. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev вс, 11 окт. 2020 г. в 04:43, Saikat Maitra : > +1 > > Regards, > Saikat > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 8:22 AM Alexey Zinoviev > wrote: > > > Agree, need to update > > > > сб, 10 окт.

Re: Migration of spring-data modules to ignite-extensions

Saikat, Thanks a lot for the review. Anyone else want to review PR [1] with migration of spring-data to ignite-extensions repository? [1] - https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/pull/25 On 10.10.2020 07:15, Saikat Maitra wrote: Hi Nikolay, I have reviewed the PR and shared my

Re: ignite-extenisions naming policy

Hi! Yes., the git tag. The naming is good. thanks. Can you also rename current one, please, or add new referring the old with agreed naming? > On 10 Oct 2020, at 07:25, Saikat Maitra wrote: > > Hi Petr, > > Can you please share if the tag you are referring to is git release tag or >