Re: Ignite.close(), G.stop(name, true). Change flag cancel to false

I’m totally for the replacement of ‘crashed’ with ‘stopped’. As for the waiting of the checkpointing completion I would NOT do it the default behavior and would rather check the ‘cancel’ flag to make a decision. If the ‘cancel’ is ‘true’ (which is default) then we’re not going to wait for the

Re: Ignite.close(), G.stop(name, true). Change flag cancel to false

My vote is still for making message softer (crashed -> stopped) and keeping logic as is. Example with File.close() is good, but I think it's not the case here. The state on disk after node stop *will not* reflect all user actions made before Ignite.close() call, independent of whether node

Re: Ignite.close(), G.stop(name, true). Change flag cancel to false

Hi guys, I'll just add my opinion if you don't mind. > May be we should implement Vladimir's suggestion to flush the pages without > respect to the cancel flag? Are there any thoughts on this? I think It's good suggestion. But in case of unit-testing a developer usually call #stopAllGrids() at

Re: Ignite.close(), G.stop(name, true). Change flag cancel to false

Thank you all for replies. I like idea to replace 'crashed' to 'stop'. 'crashed' word is really confusing. But still, if I call close () on file, all data is flushed to disk. But for ignite.close () checkpoint may be not finished. May be we should implement Vladimir's suggestion to flush the

Re: Ignite.close(), G.stop(name, true). Change flag cancel to false

Ivan, Hanging on Ignite.close() will confuse user no more than restore on start after graceful shutdown. IMO correct approach here would be to: 1) wait for checkpoint completion irrespective of "cancel" flag, because this flag relates to compute jobs only as per documentation 2) print an INFO

Re: Ignite.close(), G.stop(name, true). Change flag cancel to false

Maybe the "crashed" word is a bit strong here, we can change it to "stop" and add a message that this is valid if Ignite is stopped by "close()" method. 2017-08-04 10:54 GMT+03:00 Ivan Rakov : > Dmitriy, > > From my point of view, invoking stop(true) is correct behaviour.

Re: Ignite.close(), G.stop(name, true). Change flag cancel to false

Dmitriy, From my point of view, invoking stop(true) is correct behaviour. Stopping node in the middle of checkpoint is absolutely valid case. That's how persistence works - node will restore memory state if stopped at any moment. On the other hand, checkpoint may last for a long time. Thread

Ignite.close(), G.stop(name, true). Change flag cancel to false

Hi Igniters, I’ve created the simplest example using Ignite 2.1 and persistence (see the code below). I've included Ignite instance into try-with-resources (I think it is default approach for AutoCloseable inheritors). But next time when I started this server I got message: “Ignite node crashed