[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5447) Web Console: Deployment ID may be not unique for cache

Alexey Kuznetsov created IGNITE-5447: Summary: Web Console: Deployment ID may be not unique for cache Key: IGNITE-5447 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5447 Project: Ignite

Re: Data compression in Ignite 2.0

Valentin, Yes, I have the prototype[1][2] You can see an example of Java class[3] that I used in my benchmark. For example: class Foo { @BinaryCompression String data; } If user make decision to store the object in compressed form, he can use the annotation @BinaryCompression as shown above. It

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 wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Semyon Boikov > wrote: > > > Now affinity version is switched only when migration for new

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5446) Always use late affinity assignment mode

Semen Boikov created IGNITE-5446: Summary: Always use late affinity assignment mode Key: IGNITE-5446 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5446 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Task

Re: Key type name and value type name for CREATE TABLE

Denis, It is impossible to have simple type names and cache names in common case. E.g.: Schema 1: CREATE TABLE Person (...) Schema 2: CREATE TABLE Person (...) There definitely will be a number of limitations when working with SQL and non-SQL caches, we just do not see them all at the moment.

IGNITE-5432 fixed

Hi, everyone I've fixed IgniteMarshallerCacheClassNameConflictTest in IgniteBinarySimpleNameMapperBasicTestSuite. Please review it. pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2105 master:

Re: Suggested changes for Apache Ignite Release procedure

+1 I have assigned the ticket to myself and I did some preliminary investigations in this matter. It seems to me the most complicated part will be configuring tasks in such way that release commiter could use it without exposing his credentials for Git, SVN and Maven. I suggest we create an

Re: Configuration issues with IGFS in Ignite 1.9

Hi Cos, Please try this one: /etc/hadoop/conf/core-site.xml Vladimir. On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:40 PM,

Re: Data compression in Ignite 2.0

Igniters, Honestly I still do not see how to apply it gracefully this feature ti Ignite. And overall approach to compress only particular fields looks overcomplicated to me. Remember, that our main use case is an application without classes on the server. It means that any kind of annotations are

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2097: IGNITE-5188

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2097 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2074: IGNITE 5368 Cassandra store should support privat...

Github user irudyak closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2074 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

Re: Persistent Store Stabilization for release

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am currently in the middle of the debugging - the issue does not look > related to the persistent store changes now. > Still would be nice to let the community know whenever the TC is in stable-enough

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2065: ignite-5390: Add test for write behind coalescing...

Github user abeliak closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2065 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

Re: Data compression in Ignite 2.0

Guys, I want to be clear: * "Per-field compression" design is the result of a research of the binary infrastructure of Ignite and some other its places (querying, indexing, etc.) * Full-compression of object will be more effective, but in this case there is no capability with querying and indexing

Re: Data compression in Ignite 2.0

Igniters, I have never seen a single Ignite user asking about compressing a single field. However, we have had requests to secure certain fields, e.g. passwords. I personally do not think per-field compression is needed, unless we can point out some concrete real life use cases. D. On Thu, Jun

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2109: IGNITE-4431: Include date into the default format...

GitHub user shroman opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2109 IGNITE-4431: Include date into the default format of the ignite log. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/shroman/ignite

Re: Cassandra related question

Val, I replied to the thread. Igor On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Igor, > > Can you please take a look at this question from a user? Is it a bug? > > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite- >

Re: Data compression in Ignite 2.0

Vyacheslav, When this feature started out as data compression in Ignite, it sounded very useful. Now it is unfolding as a per-field compression, which is much less useful. In fact, it is questionable whether it is useful at all. The fact that this feature is implemented does not make it mandatory

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2110: Add rebalance enabled flag & tests

GitHub user abeliak opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2110 Add rebalance enabled flag & tests You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-5061 Alternatively you can

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

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Denis, > > I think we should not provide distinction between "data grid", "compute > grid" and other use case. We should have consistent product which just > works. > > Anyway,I am OK to just deprecate these property

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2111: ignite-5390: Add test for write behind coalescing...

GitHub user abeliak opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2111 ignite-5390: Add test for write behind coalescing=false parameter You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite

Re: Key type name and value type name for CREATE TABLE

I don't think we should restrict any existing API usage with no good reason. Lets just add some API for type name resolving. Sergi 2017-06-08 11:13 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov : > Denis, > > It is impossible to have simple type names and cache names in common case. > E.g.: >

Problem with affinity key field

Folks, (Yakov, this is partially about your problem with DML) I found one nasty problem with our "affinity key field" concept. Currently it works as follows: 1) Affinity keys are stored in binary metadata 2) Metadata is populated when object get's serialized for the first time. 3) There is an

Re: Problem with affinity key field

Alex, Sergi suggested to deprecate this interface and it is already deprecated. However, internally it is still used and in particular we depend on it in IGFS inetrnals. It will require some time to refactor IGFS. Let's just throw an exception if both AffinityKeyMapper and affinity fields

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5453) JDBC thin: add "application" parameter to connection string.

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-5453: --- Summary: JDBC thin: add "application" parameter to connection string. Key: IGNITE-5453 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5453 Project: Ignite

Re: TC-tests: is default-branch the master-branch?

Hi Vyacheslav, 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Probably Dmitry Pavlov or Dmitry Govorukhin could give more info on current state and goals of "Broken Tests" suite. On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > Hi Igniters. > > Please confirm or correct me: > > 1). We must

Re: TC-tests: is default-branch the master-branch?

Vladimir, thank you for answers. 1-2 questions were the most important for me. It will be cool If Dmitry P. or Dmitry G. could provide some information about porpose of "Broken tests" build plan) Thanks in advance. 2017-06-08 16:34 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov : > Hi

TC-tests: is default-branch the master-branch?

Hi Igniters. Please confirm or correct me: 1). We must to test our PR in TC-Run-all build plan? 2). Is default-branch (in TC) master-branch in the repo? And one more question: 3) What is the new build-plan: "Broken tests"? I haven't found information about questions above, except [1] [1]

Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.marshaller and make it no-op!

Folks, There are too many Ignite components already which can work only when BinaryMarshaller is set. Several examples: - .NET/C++ - ODBC - DML We are tightly coupled to it forever. Having said that, it seems that we should completely disallow any custom marshallers. I propose to do the

Re: Problem with affinity key field

Agreed, sounds like a plan. We should probably output a warning about deprecated interface usage and it's consequences. 2017-06-08 15:49 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov : > Alex, > > Sergi suggested to deprecate this interface and it is already deprecated. > However, internally

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2099: IGNITE-5325 Cache group param in CREATE TABLE

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2099 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

Re: Data compression in Ignite 2.0

Vladimir, The main problem which I'am trying to solve is storing data in memory in a compression form via Ignite. The main goal is using memory more effectivelly. >> here the much simpler step would be to full compression on per-cache basis rather than dealing with per-fields case. Please

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5452) Tx with timeout can make node can hang on stop.

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-5452: Summary: Tx with timeout can make node can hang on stop. Key: IGNITE-5452 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5452 Project: Ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5449) Add complex DDL+DML test.

Alexander Paschenko created IGNITE-5449: --- Summary: Add complex DDL+DML test. Key: IGNITE-5449 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5449 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Task

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5450) .NET: Update IDataStreamer.AllowOverwrite documentation

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-5450: -- Summary: .NET: Update IDataStreamer.AllowOverwrite documentation Key: IGNITE-5450 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5450 Project: Ignite

Re: IGNITE-5432 fixed

Alexey, Thanks for interest to Apache Ignite development. I briefly checked your changes and see commented codelines, does it mean that PR not ready for review yet? Also, direct "review request" can help to speedup review process, you can find tips here:

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5448) IgniteH2Indexing#tables implemented incorrectly

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-5448: --- Summary: IgniteH2Indexing#tables implemented incorrectly Key: IGNITE-5448 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5448 Project: Ignite Issue

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2077: Ignite 5061: Disable rebalancing

Github user abeliak closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2077 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

Re: Data compression in Ignite 2.0

Guys, could you please help me. I thought that if there will storing compressed data in the memory, data will transmit over wire in compression too. Is it right? 2017-06-08 13:30 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur : > Vladimir, > > The main problem which I'am trying to solve is

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2107: IGNITE-5437: Handling query argument type for que...

GitHub user skalashnikov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2107 IGNITE-5437: Handling query argument type for query derived partitions You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

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

What about the new thin JDBC client [1] Taras is working on? I believe, it's going to require BinaryMarshaller as well. Why would someone want to implement their own marshaller? Are the use-cases for that? [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4922 Best Regards, Igor On Thu, Jun

Re: Problem with affinity key field

Vladimir, Your concerns sound reasonable to me. However, I have a feeling that there was a specific reason why added CacheKeyConfiguration to the IgniteConfiguration and not to the CacheConfiguration. Looks like indeed, our original approach is not flexible enough anymore and I am +1 for the

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5451) .NET: Improve outer joins in LINQ

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-5451: -- Summary: .NET: Improve outer joins in LINQ Key: IGNITE-5451 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5451 Project: Ignite Issue Type:

Re: Configuration issues with IGFS in Ignite 1.9

Thank you for your help, Vladimir. Unfortunately, I am still seeing the same behavior while attempting to bring up the service. The full element's configuration could be found at [1] Can we perhaps get on a skype/hangout for a few minutes so we can resolve this quickly? Unless, I am doing

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

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Vovan, > > My 5 cents. > > It means that the binary marshaller is irreplaceable for Ignite as for a > SQL database. Which is fine and makes total sense to me. > > However, for Ignite as for a Data Grid use case it should be

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5454) Tree is being concurrently destroyed error

Konstantin Dudkov created IGNITE-5454: - Summary: Tree is being concurrently destroyed error Key: IGNITE-5454 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5454 Project: Ignite Issue

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5456) JDBC thin driver: the statement produces multiple result sets must be handled correct

Taras Ledkov created IGNITE-5456: Summary: JDBC thin driver: the statement produces multiple result sets must be handled correct Key: IGNITE-5456 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5456

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2108: IGNITE-5455 .NET: Fix binary hash code calculatio...

GitHub user ptupitsyn opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2108 IGNITE-5455 .NET: Fix binary hash code calculation You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/ptupitsyn/ignite ignite-5455

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5455) .NET: Incorrect binary object hash code calculation

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-5455: -- Summary: .NET: Incorrect binary object hash code calculation Key: IGNITE-5455 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5455 Project: Ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5457) Weird discovery behavior on split brain.

Alexei Scherbakov created IGNITE-5457: - Summary: Weird discovery behavior on split brain. Key: IGNITE-5457 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5457 Project: Ignite Issue

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

Vovan, My 5 cents. It means that the binary marshaller is irreplaceable for Ignite as for a SQL database. Which is fine and makes total sense to me. However, for Ignite as for a Data Grid use case it should be supported. So, personally, I would document all this properly. Other thoughts? —

Re: Data compression in Ignite 2.0

Anton, >> I thought that if there will storing compressed data in the memory, data >> will transmit over wire in compression too. Is it right? In per-field compression case - yes. 2017-06-08 13:36 GMT+03:00 Антон Чураев : > Guys, could you please help me. > I thought that

[DISCUSS] Webinar for Ignite Persistent Store walk-through

Igniters, What’d you think if we arrange an internal webinar for our community to walk through the features, capabilities and implementation details of the Ignite Persistent Store [1]? That should help us understanding the donation better. Please reply if you will be happy to attend. [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] Webinar for Ignite Persistent Store walk-through

+1 (I will attend) On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > That'd be great! Thank you! > -- > Take care, > Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik > 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 > > Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the

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

> On Jun 8, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > >> Vovan, >> >> My 5 cents. >> >> It means that the binary marshaller is irreplaceable for Ignite as for a >> SQL database. Which is

Re: [DISCUSS] Webinar for Ignite Persistent Store walk-through

That'd be great! Thank you! -- Take care, Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author might be affiliated with at the moment

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

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > > >> It means that the binary marshaller is irreplaceable for Ignite as for a > >> SQL database. Which is fine and makes total sense to me. > >> > >> However, for Ignite as for a Data Grid use case it should be supported. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite memory -> virtual memory

Updated the javadoc and existing 2.0 documentation (decided to leave the url of the doc unchanged - there are many references to it): https://apacheignite.readme.io/v2.0/docs/page-memory - Denis > On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Dmitriy

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

> On Jun 8, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > >> It means that the binary marshaller is irreplaceable for Ignite as for a SQL database. Which is fine and makes total sense to

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

Denis, I think we should not provide distinction between "data grid", "compute grid" and other use case. We should have consistent product which just works. Anyway,I am OK to just deprecate these property for 2.0 and remove 3.0 if community thinks that custom marshallers are still needed. On

Cassandra related question

Igor, Can you please take a look at this question from a user? Is it a bug? http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Cassandra-Exception-td13529.html -Val