Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-10-31 Thread Alexey Goncharuk
I'm ok with using 1GB only on a 32-bit system. Note, though, that there is
no reliable way to detect this, so this will be a best-effort change.

2017-10-31 14:07 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov :

> Hi Igniters,
>
> Up this discussion: there is still some thing to do in context of 32 bit
> VMs, see issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5618
>
> Denis M. suggested solution for this:  let's make the default size
> calculation more sophisticated. If Ignite is running in a 32 process and
> 20% of RAM is > 2 GB then let's request 1 GB or 1.5 GB only.
>
> Alex G., Sergey C., Igniters, could you please share your opinion here or
> in JIRA?
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:43, Yakov Zhdanov :
>
> > Sergey, ticket looks good to me (https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/IGNITE-6003).
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-10-31 Thread Dmitry Pavlov
Hi Igniters,

Up this discussion: there is still some thing to do in context of 32 bit
VMs, see issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5618

Denis M. suggested solution for this:  let's make the default size
calculation more sophisticated. If Ignite is running in a 32 process and
20% of RAM is > 2 GB then let's request 1 GB or 1.5 GB only.

Alex G., Sergey C., Igniters, could you please share your opinion here or
in JIRA?

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:43, Yakov Zhdanov :

> Sergey, ticket looks good to me (https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/IGNITE-6003).
>
> --Yakov
>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-09 Thread Yakov Zhdanov
Sergey, ticket looks good to me (https://issues.apache.org/
jira/browse/IGNITE-6003).

--Yakov


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-09 Thread Sergey Chugunov
Folks,

I filed a ticket [1] to address the concern of starting too many nodes.
Please review it.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6003

Thanks,
Sergey.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Sergey Chugunov 
wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> When Ignite node "allocates memory" it actually just reserves a chunk in
> its address space, almost no physical RAM is used.
>
> I can easily start half a dozen of ignite nodes with current defaults on
> my laptop with only 16 Gigs of RAM; and each node will "allocate" around 12
> Gigs; 72 gigabytes in total.
> The laptop will do easily with it so far I don't stream any data to the
> grid.
>
> But when I put some pressure to the grid, massive swapping of memory pages
> will show up as OS begins trying to keep a huge amount of pages of
> different processes in memory.
>
> So indicator "we are running out of memory" just doesn't work here.
>
> Thanks,
> Sergey.
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:01 PM,  wrote:
>
>> But why? We allocate the memory, so we should know when it runs out. What
>> am i missing?
>>
>> ⁣D.​
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2017, 11:55 AM, at 11:55 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I used GC and java only as an example, they are not applicable to
>> >Ignite
>> >case where we manage offheap memory.
>> >
>> >My point is that there is no easy way to implement this feature in
>> >Ignite,
>> >and more time is needed to properly design it and account for all
>> >risks.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Sergey.
>> >
>> >On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:44 PM,  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hang on. I thought we were talking about offheap size, GC should not
>> >be
>> >> relevant. Am I wrong?
>> >>
>> >> ⁣D.​
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 4, 2017, 11:38 AM, at 11:38 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> >> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Do you see an obvious way of implementing it?
>> >> >
>> >> >In java there is a heap and GC working on it. And for instance, it
>> >is
>> >> >possible to make a decision to throw an OOM based on some gc
>> >metrics.
>> >> >
>> >> >I may be wrong but I don't see a mechanism in Ignite to use it right
>> >> >away
>> >> >for such purposes.
>> >> >And implementing something without thorough planning brings huge
>> >risk
>> >> >of
>> >> >false positives with nodes stopping when they don't have to.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's why I think it must be implemented and intensively tested as
>> >> >part of
>> >> >a separate ticket.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >Sergey.
>> >> >
>> >> >On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:18 PM,  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Without #3, the #1 and #2 make little sense.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why is #3 so difficult?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ⁣D.​
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Aug 4, 2017, 10:46 AM, at 10:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> >> >> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >Dmitriy,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as an
>> >> >> >"OutOfMemoryException" in java.
>> >> >> >However, it looks like such feature requires considerable efforts
>> >to
>> >> >> >properly design and implement it, so I would propose to create a
>> >> >> >separate
>> >> >> >ticket and agree upon target version for it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Items #1 and #2 will be implemented under IGNITE-5717. Makes
>> >sense?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >> >Sergey.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Here is what we should do:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10%
>> >or
>> >> >50%.
>> >> >> >>2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the
>> >log.
>> >> >> >>3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low
>> >> >memory
>> >> >> >issue.
>> >> >> >>We should sense it and kick the node out automatically,
>> >again
>> >> >with
>> >> >> >a
>> >> >> >> *BOLD*
>> >> >> >>message in the log.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>  Is this possible?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> D.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > Please see inline
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > Denis,
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > The reason is that product should not hang user's
>> >computer.
>> >> >How
>> >> >> >else
>> >> >> >> > this
>> >> >> >> > > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1
>> >node,
>> >> >2
>> >> >> >nodes,
>> >> >> >> X
>> >> >> >> > > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10
>> >keys,
>> >> >1M
>> >> >> >keys.
>> >> >> >> > > Then
>> >> >> >> > > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally -
>> >> >restart
>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >> > > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory"
>> >by

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-07 Thread Sergey Chugunov
Dmitriy,

When Ignite node "allocates memory" it actually just reserves a chunk in
its address space, almost no physical RAM is used.

I can easily start half a dozen of ignite nodes with current defaults on my
laptop with only 16 Gigs of RAM; and each node will "allocate" around 12
Gigs; 72 gigabytes in total.
The laptop will do easily with it so far I don't stream any data to the
grid.

But when I put some pressure to the grid, massive swapping of memory pages
will show up as OS begins trying to keep a huge amount of pages of
different processes in memory.

So indicator "we are running out of memory" just doesn't work here.

Thanks,
Sergey.

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:01 PM,  wrote:

> But why? We allocate the memory, so we should know when it runs out. What
> am i missing?
>
> ⁣D.​
>
> On Aug 4, 2017, 11:55 AM, at 11:55 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I used GC and java only as an example, they are not applicable to
> >Ignite
> >case where we manage offheap memory.
> >
> >My point is that there is no easy way to implement this feature in
> >Ignite,
> >and more time is needed to properly design it and account for all
> >risks.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Sergey.
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:44 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> Hang on. I thought we were talking about offheap size, GC should not
> >be
> >> relevant. Am I wrong?
> >>
> >> ⁣D.​
> >>
> >> On Aug 4, 2017, 11:38 AM, at 11:38 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> >> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Do you see an obvious way of implementing it?
> >> >
> >> >In java there is a heap and GC working on it. And for instance, it
> >is
> >> >possible to make a decision to throw an OOM based on some gc
> >metrics.
> >> >
> >> >I may be wrong but I don't see a mechanism in Ignite to use it right
> >> >away
> >> >for such purposes.
> >> >And implementing something without thorough planning brings huge
> >risk
> >> >of
> >> >false positives with nodes stopping when they don't have to.
> >> >
> >> >That's why I think it must be implemented and intensively tested as
> >> >part of
> >> >a separate ticket.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Sergey.
> >> >
> >> >On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:18 PM,  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Without #3, the #1 and #2 make little sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is #3 so difficult?
> >> >>
> >> >> ⁣D.​
> >> >>
> >> >> On Aug 4, 2017, 10:46 AM, at 10:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> >> >> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Dmitriy,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as an
> >> >> >"OutOfMemoryException" in java.
> >> >> >However, it looks like such feature requires considerable efforts
> >to
> >> >> >properly design and implement it, so I would propose to create a
> >> >> >separate
> >> >> >ticket and agree upon target version for it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Items #1 and #2 will be implemented under IGNITE-5717. Makes
> >sense?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Thanks,
> >> >> >Sergey.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >> >> >
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Here is what we should do:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10%
> >or
> >> >50%.
> >> >> >>2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the
> >log.
> >> >> >>3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low
> >> >memory
> >> >> >issue.
> >> >> >>We should sense it and kick the node out automatically,
> >again
> >> >with
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> *BOLD*
> >> >> >>message in the log.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  Is this possible?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> D.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Please see inline
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Denis,
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > The reason is that product should not hang user's
> >computer.
> >> >How
> >> >> >else
> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> > > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1
> >node,
> >> >2
> >> >> >nodes,
> >> >> >> X
> >> >> >> > > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10
> >keys,
> >> >1M
> >> >> >keys.
> >> >> >> > > Then
> >> >> >> > > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally -
> >> >restart
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> > > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory"
> >by
> >> >> >default to
> >> >> >> > > avoid
> >> >> >> > > > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g.
> >Java's
> >> >> >"-Xmx"
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> > > > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to
> >> >> >Ignite.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap
> >> >parameters
> >> >> >and
> >> >> >> > > limited the overa

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-04 Thread dsetrakyan
But why? We allocate the memory, so we should know when it runs out. What am i 
missing?

⁣D.​

On Aug 4, 2017, 11:55 AM, at 11:55 AM, Sergey Chugunov 
 wrote:
>I used GC and java only as an example, they are not applicable to
>Ignite
>case where we manage offheap memory.
>
>My point is that there is no easy way to implement this feature in
>Ignite,
>and more time is needed to properly design it and account for all
>risks.
>
>Thanks,
>Sergey.
>
>On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:44 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Hang on. I thought we were talking about offheap size, GC should not
>be
>> relevant. Am I wrong?
>>
>> ⁣D.​
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2017, 11:38 AM, at 11:38 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Do you see an obvious way of implementing it?
>> >
>> >In java there is a heap and GC working on it. And for instance, it
>is
>> >possible to make a decision to throw an OOM based on some gc
>metrics.
>> >
>> >I may be wrong but I don't see a mechanism in Ignite to use it right
>> >away
>> >for such purposes.
>> >And implementing something without thorough planning brings huge
>risk
>> >of
>> >false positives with nodes stopping when they don't have to.
>> >
>> >That's why I think it must be implemented and intensively tested as
>> >part of
>> >a separate ticket.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Sergey.
>> >
>> >On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:18 PM,  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Without #3, the #1 and #2 make little sense.
>> >>
>> >> Why is #3 so difficult?
>> >>
>> >> ⁣D.​
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 4, 2017, 10:46 AM, at 10:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> >> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Dmitriy,
>> >> >
>> >> >Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as an
>> >> >"OutOfMemoryException" in java.
>> >> >However, it looks like such feature requires considerable efforts
>to
>> >> >properly design and implement it, so I would propose to create a
>> >> >separate
>> >> >ticket and agree upon target version for it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Items #1 and #2 will be implemented under IGNITE-5717. Makes
>sense?
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >Sergey.
>> >> >
>> >> >On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> >> >
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Here is what we should do:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10%
>or
>> >50%.
>> >> >>2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the
>log.
>> >> >>3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low
>> >memory
>> >> >issue.
>> >> >>We should sense it and kick the node out automatically,
>again
>> >with
>> >> >a
>> >> >> *BOLD*
>> >> >>message in the log.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  Is this possible?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> D.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
>> >> >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Please see inline
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Denis,
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > The reason is that product should not hang user's
>computer.
>> >How
>> >> >else
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1
>node,
>> >2
>> >> >nodes,
>> >> >> X
>> >> >> > > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10
>keys,
>> >1M
>> >> >keys.
>> >> >> > > Then
>> >> >> > > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally -
>> >restart
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory"
>by
>> >> >default to
>> >> >> > > avoid
>> >> >> > > > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g.
>Java's
>> >> >"-Xmx"
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> > > > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to
>> >> >Ignite.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap
>> >parameters
>> >> >and
>> >> >> > > limited the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop
>> >> >suspension. Who
>> >> >> > > knows how he got to the point that 25% RAM should be used.
>> >That
>> >> >might
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > > been deep knowledge about JVM or he faced several hangs
>while
>> >> >testing
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > application.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java
>heap
>> >to
>> >> >a
>> >> >> static
>> >> >> > > value to avoid the situations like above. So should not we
>as
>> >a
>> >> >> platform.
>> >> >> > > Educate people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun
>did
>> >for
>> >> >the
>> >> >> Java
>> >> >> > > heap but do not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the
>> >> >default
>> >> >> > static
>> >> >> > > memory size.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not.
>> >> >Persistent case
>> >> >> > > just
>> >> >> > > > makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually
>unlimited
>> >> >disk, and
>> >> >> > yet
>> >> >> > > > you

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-04 Thread Sergey Chugunov
I used GC and java only as an example, they are not applicable to Ignite
case where we manage offheap memory.

My point is that there is no easy way to implement this feature in Ignite,
and more time is needed to properly design it and account for all risks.

Thanks,
Sergey.

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:44 PM,  wrote:

> Hang on. I thought we were talking about offheap size, GC should not be
> relevant. Am I wrong?
>
> ⁣D.​
>
> On Aug 4, 2017, 11:38 AM, at 11:38 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Do you see an obvious way of implementing it?
> >
> >In java there is a heap and GC working on it. And for instance, it is
> >possible to make a decision to throw an OOM based on some gc metrics.
> >
> >I may be wrong but I don't see a mechanism in Ignite to use it right
> >away
> >for such purposes.
> >And implementing something without thorough planning brings huge risk
> >of
> >false positives with nodes stopping when they don't have to.
> >
> >That's why I think it must be implemented and intensively tested as
> >part of
> >a separate ticket.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Sergey.
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:18 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> Without #3, the #1 and #2 make little sense.
> >>
> >> Why is #3 so difficult?
> >>
> >> ⁣D.​
> >>
> >> On Aug 4, 2017, 10:46 AM, at 10:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> >> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Dmitriy,
> >> >
> >> >Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as an
> >> >"OutOfMemoryException" in java.
> >> >However, it looks like such feature requires considerable efforts to
> >> >properly design and implement it, so I would propose to create a
> >> >separate
> >> >ticket and agree upon target version for it.
> >> >
> >> >Items #1 and #2 will be implemented under IGNITE-5717. Makes sense?
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Sergey.
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >> >
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Here is what we should do:
> >> >>
> >> >>1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10% or
> >50%.
> >> >>2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the log.
> >> >>3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low
> >memory
> >> >issue.
> >> >>We should sense it and kick the node out automatically, again
> >with
> >> >a
> >> >> *BOLD*
> >> >>message in the log.
> >> >>
> >> >>  Is this possible?
> >> >>
> >> >> D.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Please see inline
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
> >> >
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Denis,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > The reason is that product should not hang user's computer.
> >How
> >> >else
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node,
> >2
> >> >nodes,
> >> >> X
> >> >> > > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys,
> >1M
> >> >keys.
> >> >> > > Then
> >> >> > > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally -
> >restart
> >> >the
> >> >> > > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by
> >> >default to
> >> >> > > avoid
> >> >> > > > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's
> >> >"-Xmx"
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to
> >> >Ignite.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap
> >parameters
> >> >and
> >> >> > > limited the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop
> >> >suspension. Who
> >> >> > > knows how he got to the point that 25% RAM should be used.
> >That
> >> >might
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > > been deep knowledge about JVM or he faced several hangs while
> >> >testing
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > application.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java heap
> >to
> >> >a
> >> >> static
> >> >> > > value to avoid the situations like above. So should not we as
> >a
> >> >> platform.
> >> >> > > Educate people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun did
> >for
> >> >the
> >> >> Java
> >> >> > > heap but do not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the
> >> >default
> >> >> > static
> >> >> > > memory size.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not.
> >> >Persistent case
> >> >> > > just
> >> >> > > > makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited
> >> >disk, and
> >> >> > yet
> >> >> > > > you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with
> >> >default
> >> >> > > > configuration. As already explained, the problem is not
> >about
> >> >> > allocating
> >> >> > > > "maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" -
> >it
> >> >is
> >> >> too
> >> >> > > big.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > How do you know what 

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-04 Thread dsetrakyan
Hang on. I thought we were talking about offheap size, GC should not be 
relevant. Am I wrong?

⁣D.​

On Aug 4, 2017, 11:38 AM, at 11:38 AM, Sergey Chugunov 
 wrote:
>Do you see an obvious way of implementing it?
>
>In java there is a heap and GC working on it. And for instance, it is
>possible to make a decision to throw an OOM based on some gc metrics.
>
>I may be wrong but I don't see a mechanism in Ignite to use it right
>away
>for such purposes.
>And implementing something without thorough planning brings huge risk
>of
>false positives with nodes stopping when they don't have to.
>
>That's why I think it must be implemented and intensively tested as
>part of
>a separate ticket.
>
>Thanks,
>Sergey.
>
>On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:18 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Without #3, the #1 and #2 make little sense.
>>
>> Why is #3 so difficult?
>>
>> ⁣D.​
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2017, 10:46 AM, at 10:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Dmitriy,
>> >
>> >Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as an
>> >"OutOfMemoryException" in java.
>> >However, it looks like such feature requires considerable efforts to
>> >properly design and implement it, so I would propose to create a
>> >separate
>> >ticket and agree upon target version for it.
>> >
>> >Items #1 and #2 will be implemented under IGNITE-5717. Makes sense?
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Sergey.
>> >
>> >On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Here is what we should do:
>> >>
>> >>1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10% or
>50%.
>> >>2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the log.
>> >>3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low
>memory
>> >issue.
>> >>We should sense it and kick the node out automatically, again
>with
>> >a
>> >> *BOLD*
>> >>message in the log.
>> >>
>> >>  Is this possible?
>> >>
>> >> D.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
>> >> >
>> >> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
>> >> >
>> >> > > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Please see inline
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
>> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Denis,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > The reason is that product should not hang user's computer.
>How
>> >else
>> >> > this
>> >> > > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node,
>2
>> >nodes,
>> >> X
>> >> > > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys,
>1M
>> >keys.
>> >> > > Then
>> >> > > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally -
>restart
>> >the
>> >> > > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by
>> >default to
>> >> > > avoid
>> >> > > > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's
>> >"-Xmx"
>> >> is
>> >> > > > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to
>> >Ignite.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap
>parameters
>> >and
>> >> > > limited the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop
>> >suspension. Who
>> >> > > knows how he got to the point that 25% RAM should be used.
>That
>> >might
>> >> > have
>> >> > > been deep knowledge about JVM or he faced several hangs while
>> >testing
>> >> the
>> >> > > application.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java heap
>to
>> >a
>> >> static
>> >> > > value to avoid the situations like above. So should not we as
>a
>> >> platform.
>> >> > > Educate people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun did
>for
>> >the
>> >> Java
>> >> > > heap but do not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the
>> >default
>> >> > static
>> >> > > memory size.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not.
>> >Persistent case
>> >> > > just
>> >> > > > makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited
>> >disk, and
>> >> > yet
>> >> > > > you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with
>> >default
>> >> > > > configuration. As already explained, the problem is not
>about
>> >> > allocating
>> >> > > > "maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" -
>it
>> >is
>> >> too
>> >> > > big.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > How do you know what should be the default then? Why 1 GB? For
>> >> instance,
>> >> > > if I end up having only 1 GB of free memory left and try to
>start
>> >2
>> >> > server
>> >> > > nodes and an application I will face the laptop suspension
>again.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > —
>> >> > > Denis
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > "We had this behavior before" is never an argument. Previous
>> >offheap
>> >> > > > implementation had a lot of flaws, so let's just forget
>about
>> >it.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Denis Magda
>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Sergey,
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this
>discussion
>> >the
>> >> > > >

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-04 Thread Sergey Chugunov
Do you see an obvious way of implementing it?

In java there is a heap and GC working on it. And for instance, it is
possible to make a decision to throw an OOM based on some gc metrics.

I may be wrong but I don't see a mechanism in Ignite to use it right away
for such purposes.
And implementing something without thorough planning brings huge risk of
false positives with nodes stopping when they don't have to.

That's why I think it must be implemented and intensively tested as part of
a separate ticket.

Thanks,
Sergey.

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:18 PM,  wrote:

> Without #3, the #1 and #2 make little sense.
>
> Why is #3 so difficult?
>
> ⁣D.​
>
> On Aug 4, 2017, 10:46 AM, at 10:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Dmitriy,
> >
> >Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as an
> >"OutOfMemoryException" in java.
> >However, it looks like such feature requires considerable efforts to
> >properly design and implement it, so I would propose to create a
> >separate
> >ticket and agree upon target version for it.
> >
> >Items #1 and #2 will be implemented under IGNITE-5717. Makes sense?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Sergey.
> >
> >On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Here is what we should do:
> >>
> >>1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10% or 50%.
> >>2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the log.
> >>3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low memory
> >issue.
> >>We should sense it and kick the node out automatically, again with
> >a
> >> *BOLD*
> >>message in the log.
> >>
> >>  Is this possible?
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
> >> >
> >> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
> >> >
> >> > > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
> >> > >
> >> > > Please see inline
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Denis,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The reason is that product should not hang user's computer. How
> >else
> >> > this
> >> > > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node, 2
> >nodes,
> >> X
> >> > > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys, 1M
> >keys.
> >> > > Then
> >> > > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally - restart
> >the
> >> > > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by
> >default to
> >> > > avoid
> >> > > > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's
> >"-Xmx"
> >> is
> >> > > > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to
> >Ignite.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap parameters
> >and
> >> > > limited the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop
> >suspension. Who
> >> > > knows how he got to the point that 25% RAM should be used. That
> >might
> >> > have
> >> > > been deep knowledge about JVM or he faced several hangs while
> >testing
> >> the
> >> > > application.
> >> > >
> >> > > Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java heap to
> >a
> >> static
> >> > > value to avoid the situations like above. So should not we as a
> >> platform.
> >> > > Educate people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun did for
> >the
> >> Java
> >> > > heap but do not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the
> >default
> >> > static
> >> > > memory size.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not.
> >Persistent case
> >> > > just
> >> > > > makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited
> >disk, and
> >> > yet
> >> > > > you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with
> >default
> >> > > > configuration. As already explained, the problem is not about
> >> > allocating
> >> > > > "maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" - it
> >is
> >> too
> >> > > big.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > How do you know what should be the default then? Why 1 GB? For
> >> instance,
> >> > > if I end up having only 1 GB of free memory left and try to start
> >2
> >> > server
> >> > > nodes and an application I will face the laptop suspension again.
> >> > >
> >> > > —
> >> > > Denis
> >> > >
> >> > > > "We had this behavior before" is never an argument. Previous
> >offheap
> >> > > > implementation had a lot of flaws, so let's just forget about
> >it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Denis Magda 
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Sergey,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion
> >the
> >> > > >> allocation works different depending on whether the
> >persistence is
> >> > used
> >> > > or
> >> > > >> not:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space
> >will be
> >> > > >> allocated incrementally until the max threshold is reached.
> >Good!
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 2) The persistence mode - the whole sp

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-04 Thread dsetrakyan
Without #3, the #1 and #2 make little sense.

Why is #3 so difficult?

⁣D.​

On Aug 4, 2017, 10:46 AM, at 10:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov 
 wrote:
>Dmitriy,
>
>Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as an
>"OutOfMemoryException" in java.
>However, it looks like such feature requires considerable efforts to
>properly design and implement it, so I would propose to create a
>separate
>ticket and agree upon target version for it.
>
>Items #1 and #2 will be implemented under IGNITE-5717. Makes sense?
>
>Thanks,
>Sergey.
>
>On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>
>wrote:
>
>> Here is what we should do:
>>
>>1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10% or 50%.
>>2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the log.
>>3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low memory
>issue.
>>We should sense it and kick the node out automatically, again with
>a
>> *BOLD*
>>message in the log.
>>
>>  Is this possible?
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
>> >
>> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
>> >
>> > > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
>> > >
>> > > Please see inline
>> > >
>> > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Denis,
>> > > >
>> > > > The reason is that product should not hang user's computer. How
>else
>> > this
>> > > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node, 2
>nodes,
>> X
>> > > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys, 1M
>keys.
>> > > Then
>> > > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally - restart
>the
>> > > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by
>default to
>> > > avoid
>> > > > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's
>"-Xmx"
>> is
>> > > > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to
>Ignite.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap parameters
>and
>> > > limited the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop
>suspension. Who
>> > > knows how he got to the point that 25% RAM should be used. That
>might
>> > have
>> > > been deep knowledge about JVM or he faced several hangs while
>testing
>> the
>> > > application.
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java heap to
>a
>> static
>> > > value to avoid the situations like above. So should not we as a
>> platform.
>> > > Educate people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun did for
>the
>> Java
>> > > heap but do not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the
>default
>> > static
>> > > memory size.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not.
>Persistent case
>> > > just
>> > > > makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited
>disk, and
>> > yet
>> > > > you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with
>default
>> > > > configuration. As already explained, the problem is not about
>> > allocating
>> > > > "maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" - it
>is
>> too
>> > > big.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > How do you know what should be the default then? Why 1 GB? For
>> instance,
>> > > if I end up having only 1 GB of free memory left and try to start
>2
>> > server
>> > > nodes and an application I will face the laptop suspension again.
>> > >
>> > > —
>> > > Denis
>> > >
>> > > > "We had this behavior before" is never an argument. Previous
>offheap
>> > > > implementation had a lot of flaws, so let's just forget about
>it.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Sergey,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion
>the
>> > > >> allocation works different depending on whether the
>persistence is
>> > used
>> > > or
>> > > >> not:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space
>will be
>> > > >> allocated incrementally until the max threshold is reached.
>Good!
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 2) The persistence mode - the whole space (limited by the max
>> > threshold)
>> > > >> is allocated right away. It’s not surprising that your laptop
>starts
>> > > >> choking.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> So, in my previous response I tried to explain that I can’t
>find any
>> > > >> reason why we should adjust 1). Any reasons except for the
>massive
>> > > >> preloading?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> As for 2), that was a big surprise to reveal this after 2.1
>release.
>> > > >> Definitely we have to fix this somehow.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> —
>> > > >> Denis
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Denis,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to
>execute
>> > > >>> PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server
>nodes
>> and
>> > > >>> client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the
>gr

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-04 Thread Sergey Chugunov
Dmitriy,

Last item makes perfect sense to me, one may think of it as an
"OutOfMemoryException" in java.
However, it looks like such feature requires considerable efforts to
properly design and implement it, so I would propose to create a separate
ticket and agree upon target version for it.

Items #1 and #2 will be implemented under IGNITE-5717. Makes sense?

Thanks,
Sergey.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
wrote:

> Here is what we should do:
>
>1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10% or 50%.
>2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the log.
>3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low memory issue.
>We should sense it and kick the node out automatically, again with a
> *BOLD*
>message in the log.
>
>  Is this possible?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
>
> > My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
> >
> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
> >
> > > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
> > >
> > > Please see inline
> > >
> > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > The reason is that product should not hang user's computer. How else
> > this
> > > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node, 2 nodes,
> X
> > > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys, 1M keys.
> > > Then
> > > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally - restart the
> > > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by default to
> > > avoid
> > > > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's "-Xmx"
> is
> > > > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to Ignite.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap parameters and
> > > limited the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop suspension. Who
> > > knows how he got to the point that 25% RAM should be used. That might
> > have
> > > been deep knowledge about JVM or he faced several hangs while testing
> the
> > > application.
> > >
> > > Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java heap to a
> static
> > > value to avoid the situations like above. So should not we as a
> platform.
> > > Educate people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun did for the
> Java
> > > heap but do not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the default
> > static
> > > memory size.
> > >
> > >
> > > > It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not. Persistent case
> > > just
> > > > makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited disk, and
> > yet
> > > > you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with default
> > > > configuration. As already explained, the problem is not about
> > allocating
> > > > "maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" - it is
> too
> > > big.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How do you know what should be the default then? Why 1 GB? For
> instance,
> > > if I end up having only 1 GB of free memory left and try to start 2
> > server
> > > nodes and an application I will face the laptop suspension again.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > "We had this behavior before" is never an argument. Previous offheap
> > > > implementation had a lot of flaws, so let's just forget about it.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Sergey,
> > > >>
> > > >> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion the
> > > >> allocation works different depending on whether the persistence is
> > used
> > > or
> > > >> not:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space will be
> > > >> allocated incrementally until the max threshold is reached. Good!
> > > >>
> > > >> 2) The persistence mode - the whole space (limited by the max
> > threshold)
> > > >> is allocated right away. It’s not surprising that your laptop starts
> > > >> choking.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, in my previous response I tried to explain that I can’t find any
> > > >> reason why we should adjust 1). Any reasons except for the massive
> > > >> preloading?
> > > >>
> > > >> As for 2), that was a big surprise to reveal this after 2.1 release.
> > > >> Definitely we have to fix this somehow.
> > > >>
> > > >> —
> > > >> Denis
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Denis,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to execute
> > > >>> PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server nodes
> and
> > > >>> client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the grid.
> > > >>> Although with one server node the example finishes pretty quickly.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And my laptop isn't the weakest one and has 16 gigs of memory, but
> it
> > > >>> cannot deal with it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > > As far as

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan
Here is what we should do:

   1. Pick an acceptable number. Does not matter if it is 10% or 50%.
   2. Print the allocated memory in *BOLD* letters into the log.
   3. Make sure that Ignite server never hangs due to the low memory issue.
   We should sense it and kick the node out automatically, again with a *BOLD*
   message in the log.

 Is this possible?

D.

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov 
wrote:

> My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.
>
> ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :
>
> > Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
> >
> > Please see inline
> >
> > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > The reason is that product should not hang user's computer. How else
> this
> > > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node, 2 nodes, X
> > > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys, 1M keys.
> > Then
> > > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally - restart the
> > > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by default to
> > avoid
> > > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's "-Xmx" is
> > > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to Ignite.
> > >
> >
> > Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap parameters and
> > limited the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop suspension. Who
> > knows how he got to the point that 25% RAM should be used. That might
> have
> > been deep knowledge about JVM or he faced several hangs while testing the
> > application.
> >
> > Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java heap to a static
> > value to avoid the situations like above. So should not we as a platform.
> > Educate people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun did for the Java
> > heap but do not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the default
> static
> > memory size.
> >
> >
> > > It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not. Persistent case
> > just
> > > makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited disk, and
> yet
> > > you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with default
> > > configuration. As already explained, the problem is not about
> allocating
> > > "maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" - it is too
> > big.
> > >
> >
> > How do you know what should be the default then? Why 1 GB? For instance,
> > if I end up having only 1 GB of free memory left and try to start 2
> server
> > nodes and an application I will face the laptop suspension again.
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > "We had this behavior before" is never an argument. Previous offheap
> > > implementation had a lot of flaws, so let's just forget about it.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sergey,
> > >>
> > >> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion the
> > >> allocation works different depending on whether the persistence is
> used
> > or
> > >> not:
> > >>
> > >> 1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space will be
> > >> allocated incrementally until the max threshold is reached. Good!
> > >>
> > >> 2) The persistence mode - the whole space (limited by the max
> threshold)
> > >> is allocated right away. It’s not surprising that your laptop starts
> > >> choking.
> > >>
> > >> So, in my previous response I tried to explain that I can’t find any
> > >> reason why we should adjust 1). Any reasons except for the massive
> > >> preloading?
> > >>
> > >> As for 2), that was a big surprise to reveal this after 2.1 release.
> > >> Definitely we have to fix this somehow.
> > >>
> > >> —
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Denis,
> > >>>
> > >>> Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to execute
> > >>> PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server nodes and
> > >>> client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the grid.
> > >>> Although with one server node the example finishes pretty quickly.
> > >>>
> > >>> And my laptop isn't the weakest one and has 16 gigs of memory, but it
> > >>> cannot deal with it.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > > As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even
> > for
> > > In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default.
> Looking
> > at
> > > free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.
> > 
> >  Guys, I can not understand how this dynamic memory allocation's
> > >> high-level
> >  behavior (with the persistence DISABLED) is different from the
> legacy
> >  off-heap memory we had in 1.x. Both off-heap memories allocate the
> > >> space on
> >  demand, the current just does this more aggressively requesting big
> > >> chunks.
> > 
> >  Next, the legacy one was unlimited by default and the user can start
> > as
> >  many nodes 

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Vladimir Ozerov
My proposal is 10% instead of 80%.

ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 18:54, Denis Magda :

> Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,
>
> Please see inline
>
> > On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Denis,
> >
> > The reason is that product should not hang user's computer. How else this
> > could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node, 2 nodes, X
> > nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys, 1M keys.
> Then
> > I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally - restart the
> > computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by default to
> avoid
> > that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's "-Xmx" is
> > typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to Ignite.
> >
>
> Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap parameters and
> limited the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop suspension. Who
> knows how he got to the point that 25% RAM should be used. That might have
> been deep knowledge about JVM or he faced several hangs while testing the
> application.
>
> Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java heap to a static
> value to avoid the situations like above. So should not we as a platform.
> Educate people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun did for the Java
> heap but do not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the default static
> memory size.
>
>
> > It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not. Persistent case
> just
> > makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited disk, and yet
> > you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with default
> > configuration. As already explained, the problem is not about allocating
> > "maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" - it is too
> big.
> >
>
> How do you know what should be the default then? Why 1 GB? For instance,
> if I end up having only 1 GB of free memory left and try to start 2 server
> nodes and an application I will face the laptop suspension again.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > "We had this behavior before" is never an argument. Previous offheap
> > implementation had a lot of flaws, so let's just forget about it.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> >> Sergey,
> >>
> >> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion the
> >> allocation works different depending on whether the persistence is used
> or
> >> not:
> >>
> >> 1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space will be
> >> allocated incrementally until the max threshold is reached. Good!
> >>
> >> 2) The persistence mode - the whole space (limited by the max threshold)
> >> is allocated right away. It’s not surprising that your laptop starts
> >> choking.
> >>
> >> So, in my previous response I tried to explain that I can’t find any
> >> reason why we should adjust 1). Any reasons except for the massive
> >> preloading?
> >>
> >> As for 2), that was a big surprise to reveal this after 2.1 release.
> >> Definitely we have to fix this somehow.
> >>
> >> —
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Sergey Chugunov  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Denis,
> >>>
> >>> Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to execute
> >>> PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server nodes and
> >>> client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the grid.
> >>> Although with one server node the example finishes pretty quickly.
> >>>
> >>> And my laptop isn't the weakest one and has 16 gigs of memory, but it
> >>> cannot deal with it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>>
> > As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even
> for
> > In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default. Looking
> at
> > free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.
> 
>  Guys, I can not understand how this dynamic memory allocation's
> >> high-level
>  behavior (with the persistence DISABLED) is different from the legacy
>  off-heap memory we had in 1.x. Both off-heap memories allocate the
> >> space on
>  demand, the current just does this more aggressively requesting big
> >> chunks.
> 
>  Next, the legacy one was unlimited by default and the user can start
> as
>  many nodes as he wanted on a laptop and preload as much data as he
> >> needed.
>  Sure he could bring down the laptop if too many entries were injected
> >> into
>  the local cluster. But that’s about too massive preloading and not
> >> caused
>  by the ability of the legacy off-heap memory to grow infinitely. The
> >> same
>  preloading would cause a hang if the Java heap memory mode is used.
> 
>  The upshot is that the massive preloading of data on the local laptop
>  should not fixed with repealing of the dynamic memory allocation.
>  Is there any other reason why we have to use the static memory
> >> allocation
>  for the case when the persistence is disabled? I thin

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Denis Magda
Vladimir, Dmitriy P.,

Please see inline

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov  wrote:
> 
> Denis,
> 
> The reason is that product should not hang user's computer. How else this
> could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node, 2 nodes, X
> nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys, 1M keys. Then
> I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally - restart the
> computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by default to avoid
> that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's "-Xmx" is
> typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to Ignite.
> 

Right, the developer was educated about the Java heap parameters and limited 
the overall space preferring OOM to the laptop suspension. Who knows how he got 
to the point that 25% RAM should be used. That might have been deep knowledge 
about JVM or he faced several hangs while testing the application.

Anyway, JVM creators didn’t decide to predefine the Java heap to a static value 
to avoid the situations like above. So should not we as a platform. Educate 
people about the Ignite memory behavior like Sun did for the Java heap but do 
not try to solve the lack of knowledge with the default static memory size.


> It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not. Persistent case just
> makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited disk, and yet
> you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with default
> configuration. As already explained, the problem is not about allocating
> "maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" - it is too big.
> 

How do you know what should be the default then? Why 1 GB? For instance, if I 
end up having only 1 GB of free memory left and try to start 2 server nodes and 
an application I will face the laptop suspension again.

—
Denis

> "We had this behavior before" is never an argument. Previous offheap
> implementation had a lot of flaws, so let's just forget about it.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>> Sergey,
>> 
>> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion the
>> allocation works different depending on whether the persistence is used or
>> not:
>> 
>> 1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space will be
>> allocated incrementally until the max threshold is reached. Good!
>> 
>> 2) The persistence mode - the whole space (limited by the max threshold)
>> is allocated right away. It’s not surprising that your laptop starts
>> choking.
>> 
>> So, in my previous response I tried to explain that I can’t find any
>> reason why we should adjust 1). Any reasons except for the massive
>> preloading?
>> 
>> As for 2), that was a big surprise to reveal this after 2.1 release.
>> Definitely we have to fix this somehow.
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Sergey Chugunov 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Denis,
>>> 
>>> Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to execute
>>> PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server nodes and
>>> client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the grid.
>>> Although with one server node the example finishes pretty quickly.
>>> 
>>> And my laptop isn't the weakest one and has 16 gigs of memory, but it
>>> cannot deal with it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>>> 
> As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even for
> In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default. Looking at
> free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.
 
 Guys, I can not understand how this dynamic memory allocation's
>> high-level
 behavior (with the persistence DISABLED) is different from the legacy
 off-heap memory we had in 1.x. Both off-heap memories allocate the
>> space on
 demand, the current just does this more aggressively requesting big
>> chunks.
 
 Next, the legacy one was unlimited by default and the user can start as
 many nodes as he wanted on a laptop and preload as much data as he
>> needed.
 Sure he could bring down the laptop if too many entries were injected
>> into
 the local cluster. But that’s about too massive preloading and not
>> caused
 by the ability of the legacy off-heap memory to grow infinitely. The
>> same
 preloading would cause a hang if the Java heap memory mode is used.
 
 The upshot is that the massive preloading of data on the local laptop
 should not fixed with repealing of the dynamic memory allocation.
 Is there any other reason why we have to use the static memory
>> allocation
 for the case when the persistence is disabled? I think the case with the
 persistence should be reviewed separately.
 
 —
 Denis
 
> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:45 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
 alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dmitriy,
> 
> The reason behind this is the need to to be able to evict and loa

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Vladimir Ozerov
Denis,

The reason is that product should not hang user's computer. How else this
could be explained? I am developer. I start Ignite, 1 node, 2 nodes, X
nodes, observe how they join topology. Add one key, 10 keys, 1M keys. Then
I do a bug in example and load 100M keys accidentally - restart the
computer. Correct behavior is to have small "maxMemory" by default to avoid
that. User should get exception instead of hang. E.g. Java's "-Xmx" is
typically 25% of RAM - more adequate value, comparing to Ignite.

It doesn't matter whether you use persistence or not. Persistent case just
makes this flaw more obvious - you have virtually unlimited disk, and yet
you end up with swapping and hang when using Ignite with default
configuration. As already explained, the problem is not about allocating
"maxMemory" right away, but about the value of "maxMemory" - it is too big.

"We had this behavior before" is never an argument. Previous offheap
implementation had a lot of flaws, so let's just forget about it.

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> Sergey,
>
> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion the
> allocation works different depending on whether the persistence is used or
> not:
>
> 1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space will be
> allocated incrementally until the max threshold is reached. Good!
>
> 2) The persistence mode - the whole space (limited by the max threshold)
> is allocated right away. It’s not surprising that your laptop starts
> choking.
>
> So, in my previous response I tried to explain that I can’t find any
> reason why we should adjust 1). Any reasons except for the massive
> preloading?
>
> As for 2), that was a big surprise to reveal this after 2.1 release.
> Definitely we have to fix this somehow.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Sergey Chugunov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Denis,
> >
> > Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to execute
> > PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server nodes and
> > client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the grid.
> > Although with one server node the example finishes pretty quickly.
> >
> > And my laptop isn't the weakest one and has 16 gigs of memory, but it
> > cannot deal with it.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> >>> As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even for
> >>> In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default. Looking at
> >>> free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.
> >>
> >> Guys, I can not understand how this dynamic memory allocation's
> high-level
> >> behavior (with the persistence DISABLED) is different from the legacy
> >> off-heap memory we had in 1.x. Both off-heap memories allocate the
> space on
> >> demand, the current just does this more aggressively requesting big
> chunks.
> >>
> >> Next, the legacy one was unlimited by default and the user can start as
> >> many nodes as he wanted on a laptop and preload as much data as he
> needed.
> >> Sure he could bring down the laptop if too many entries were injected
> into
> >> the local cluster. But that’s about too massive preloading and not
> caused
> >> by the ability of the legacy off-heap memory to grow infinitely. The
> same
> >> preloading would cause a hang if the Java heap memory mode is used.
> >>
> >> The upshot is that the massive preloading of data on the local laptop
> >> should not fixed with repealing of the dynamic memory allocation.
> >> Is there any other reason why we have to use the static memory
> allocation
> >> for the case when the persistence is disabled? I think the case with the
> >> persistence should be reviewed separately.
> >>
> >> —
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:45 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dmitriy,
> >>>
> >>> The reason behind this is the need to to be able to evict and load
> pages
> >> to
> >>> disk, thus we need to preserve a PageId->Pointer mapping in memory. In
> >>> order to do this in the most efficient way, we need to know in advance
> >> all
> >>> the address ranges we work with. We can add dynamic memory extension
> for
> >>> persistence-enabled config, but this will add yet another step of
> >>> indirection when resolving every page address, which adds a noticeable
> >>> performance penalty.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2017-08-02 10:37 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >>>
>  On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov  >
>  wrote:
> 
> > Dima,
> >
> > Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why.
> >
> 
>  Without knowing why, how can we make a decision?
> 
>  Alexey Goncharuk, was it you who made the decision about not using
>  increments? Do know remember what was the reason?
> 
> 
> >
> > The very problem is that before being started once on production
> > environment, Ignite will typically be started hun

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Dmitry Pavlov
Hi Igniters,

When I was Ignite user before installing product on production server I’ve
always used this page
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/jvm-and-system-tuning for selecting
appropriate parameters.

But before go live, I’ve used Ignition.start() 20 times per day to check if
my changes in business code work correctly. Most of runs I’ve used 2-5
nodes on one laptop (plus application server, plus emulators, plus browser).


I think defaults should be targeted to developers (Ignite users). But for
powerful production servers should be performance hints added and
highlighted in doc (like
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/memory-configuration )

Sincerely,

Dmitriy Pavlov.


ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 17:08, Denis Magda :

> Sergey,
>
> That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion the
> allocation works different depending on whether the persistence is used or
> not:
>
> 1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space will be
> allocated incrementally until the max threshold is reached. Good!
>
> 2) The persistence mode - the whole space (limited by the max threshold)
> is allocated right away. It’s not surprising that your laptop starts
> choking.
>
> So, in my previous response I tried to explain that I can’t find any
> reason why we should adjust 1). Any reasons except for the massive
> preloading?
>
> As for 2), that was a big surprise to reveal this after 2.1 release.
> Definitely we have to fix this somehow.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Sergey Chugunov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Denis,
> >
> > Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to execute
> > PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server nodes and
> > client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the grid.
> > Although with one server node the example finishes pretty quickly.
> >
> > And my laptop isn't the weakest one and has 16 gigs of memory, but it
> > cannot deal with it.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> >>> As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even for
> >>> In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default. Looking at
> >>> free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.
> >>
> >> Guys, I can not understand how this dynamic memory allocation's
> high-level
> >> behavior (with the persistence DISABLED) is different from the legacy
> >> off-heap memory we had in 1.x. Both off-heap memories allocate the
> space on
> >> demand, the current just does this more aggressively requesting big
> chunks.
> >>
> >> Next, the legacy one was unlimited by default and the user can start as
> >> many nodes as he wanted on a laptop and preload as much data as he
> needed.
> >> Sure he could bring down the laptop if too many entries were injected
> into
> >> the local cluster. But that’s about too massive preloading and not
> caused
> >> by the ability of the legacy off-heap memory to grow infinitely. The
> same
> >> preloading would cause a hang if the Java heap memory mode is used.
> >>
> >> The upshot is that the massive preloading of data on the local laptop
> >> should not fixed with repealing of the dynamic memory allocation.
> >> Is there any other reason why we have to use the static memory
> allocation
> >> for the case when the persistence is disabled? I think the case with the
> >> persistence should be reviewed separately.
> >>
> >> —
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:45 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dmitriy,
> >>>
> >>> The reason behind this is the need to to be able to evict and load
> pages
> >> to
> >>> disk, thus we need to preserve a PageId->Pointer mapping in memory. In
> >>> order to do this in the most efficient way, we need to know in advance
> >> all
> >>> the address ranges we work with. We can add dynamic memory extension
> for
> >>> persistence-enabled config, but this will add yet another step of
> >>> indirection when resolving every page address, which adds a noticeable
> >>> performance penalty.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2017-08-02 10:37 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >>>
>  On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov  >
>  wrote:
> 
> > Dima,
> >
> > Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why.
> >
> 
>  Without knowing why, how can we make a decision?
> 
>  Alexey Goncharuk, was it you who made the decision about not using
>  increments? Do know remember what was the reason?
> 
> 
> >
> > The very problem is that before being started once on production
> > environment, Ignite will typically be started hundred times on
>  developer's
> > environment. I think that default should be ~10% of total RAM.
> >
> 
>  Why not 80% of *free *RAM?
> 
> 
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>  dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, 

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Denis Magda
Sergey,

That’s expectable because as we revealed from this discussion the allocation 
works different depending on whether the persistence is used or not:

1) In-memory mode (the persistence is disabled) - the space will be allocated 
incrementally until the max threshold is reached. Good!

2) The persistence mode - the whole space (limited by the max threshold) is 
allocated right away. It’s not surprising that your laptop starts choking.

So, in my previous response I tried to explain that I can’t find any reason why 
we should adjust 1). Any reasons except for the massive preloading?

As for 2), that was a big surprise to reveal this after 2.1 release. Definitely 
we have to fix this somehow.

—
Denis

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Sergey Chugunov  wrote:
> 
> Denis,
> 
> Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to execute
> PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server nodes and
> client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the grid.
> Although with one server node the example finishes pretty quickly.
> 
> And my laptop isn't the weakest one and has 16 gigs of memory, but it
> cannot deal with it.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>>> As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even for
>>> In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default. Looking at
>>> free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.
>> 
>> Guys, I can not understand how this dynamic memory allocation's high-level
>> behavior (with the persistence DISABLED) is different from the legacy
>> off-heap memory we had in 1.x. Both off-heap memories allocate the space on
>> demand, the current just does this more aggressively requesting big chunks.
>> 
>> Next, the legacy one was unlimited by default and the user can start as
>> many nodes as he wanted on a laptop and preload as much data as he needed.
>> Sure he could bring down the laptop if too many entries were injected into
>> the local cluster. But that’s about too massive preloading and not caused
>> by the ability of the legacy off-heap memory to grow infinitely. The same
>> preloading would cause a hang if the Java heap memory mode is used.
>> 
>> The upshot is that the massive preloading of data on the local laptop
>> should not fixed with repealing of the dynamic memory allocation.
>> Is there any other reason why we have to use the static memory allocation
>> for the case when the persistence is disabled? I think the case with the
>> persistence should be reviewed separately.
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:45 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dmitriy,
>>> 
>>> The reason behind this is the need to to be able to evict and load pages
>> to
>>> disk, thus we need to preserve a PageId->Pointer mapping in memory. In
>>> order to do this in the most efficient way, we need to know in advance
>> all
>>> the address ranges we work with. We can add dynamic memory extension for
>>> persistence-enabled config, but this will add yet another step of
>>> indirection when resolving every page address, which adds a noticeable
>>> performance penalty.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2017-08-02 10:37 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>>> 
 On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
 wrote:
 
> Dima,
> 
> Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why.
> 
 
 Without knowing why, how can we make a decision?
 
 Alexey Goncharuk, was it you who made the decision about not using
 increments? Do know remember what was the reason?
 
 
> 
> The very problem is that before being started once on production
> environment, Ignite will typically be started hundred times on
 developer's
> environment. I think that default should be ~10% of total RAM.
> 
 
 Why not 80% of *free *RAM?
 
 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
 dsetrak...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov >> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled,
>> memory
>>> is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.
>>> 
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> 
>>> Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's
 environment.
>>> 
>> 
>> Agree, but why not in increments?
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :
>>> 
> Why not allocate in increments automatically?
 
 This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will
>> grow
 incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by
 default).
 
 —
 Denis
 
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want
> t o
 guess. Why not alloc

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Sergey Chugunov
Denis,

Just a simple example from our own codebase: I tried to execute
PersistentStoreExample with default settings and two server nodes and
client node got frozen even on initial load of data into the grid.
Although with one server node the example finishes pretty quickly.

And my laptop isn't the weakest one and has 16 gigs of memory, but it
cannot deal with it.


On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> > As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even for
> > In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default. Looking at
> > free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.
>
> Guys, I can not understand how this dynamic memory allocation's high-level
> behavior (with the persistence DISABLED) is different from the legacy
> off-heap memory we had in 1.x. Both off-heap memories allocate the space on
> demand, the current just does this more aggressively requesting big chunks.
>
> Next, the legacy one was unlimited by default and the user can start as
> many nodes as he wanted on a laptop and preload as much data as he needed.
> Sure he could bring down the laptop if too many entries were injected into
> the local cluster. But that’s about too massive preloading and not caused
> by the ability of the legacy off-heap memory to grow infinitely. The same
> preloading would cause a hang if the Java heap memory mode is used.
>
> The upshot is that the massive preloading of data on the local laptop
> should not fixed with repealing of the dynamic memory allocation.
> Is there any other reason why we have to use the static memory allocation
> for the case when the persistence is disabled? I think the case with the
> persistence should be reviewed separately.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:45 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > The reason behind this is the need to to be able to evict and load pages
> to
> > disk, thus we need to preserve a PageId->Pointer mapping in memory. In
> > order to do this in the most efficient way, we need to know in advance
> all
> > the address ranges we work with. We can add dynamic memory extension for
> > persistence-enabled config, but this will add yet another step of
> > indirection when resolving every page address, which adds a noticeable
> > performance penalty.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-02 10:37 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dima,
> >>>
> >>> Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Without knowing why, how can we make a decision?
> >>
> >> Alexey Goncharuk, was it you who made the decision about not using
> >> increments? Do know remember what was the reason?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The very problem is that before being started once on production
> >>> environment, Ignite will typically be started hundred times on
> >> developer's
> >>> environment. I think that default should be ~10% of total RAM.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why not 80% of *free *RAM?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov  >
>  wrote:
> 
> > Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled,
>  memory
> > is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.
> >
> 
>  Why?
> 
> 
> > Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's
> >> environment.
> >
> 
>  Agree, but why not in increments?
> 
> 
> >
> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :
> >
> >>> Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> >>
> >> This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will
>  grow
> >> incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by
> >> default).
> >>
> >> —
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want
> >>> t o
> >> guess. Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> >>>
> >>> ⁣D.​
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>  Denis,
>  No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence,
> >>> when
>  80% of
>  RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How
> >> do
>  you
>  think, how many users tried it already?
> 
>  Guys,
>  Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal
>  thing?
>  Take
>  your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now.
> >>> Do
> > you
>  fit
>  to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with
> >>> all
>  defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
>  allocate 

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Denis Magda
> As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even for
> In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default. Looking at
> free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.

Guys, I can not understand how this dynamic memory allocation's high-level 
behavior (with the persistence DISABLED) is different from the legacy off-heap 
memory we had in 1.x. Both off-heap memories allocate the space on demand, the 
current just does this more aggressively requesting big chunks.

Next, the legacy one was unlimited by default and the user can start as many 
nodes as he wanted on a laptop and preload as much data as he needed. Sure he 
could bring down the laptop if too many entries were injected into the local 
cluster. But that’s about too massive preloading and not caused by the ability 
of the legacy off-heap memory to grow infinitely. The same preloading would 
cause a hang if the Java heap memory mode is used.

The upshot is that the massive preloading of data on the local laptop should 
not fixed with repealing of the dynamic memory allocation. 
Is there any other reason why we have to use the static memory allocation for 
the case when the persistence is disabled? I think the case with the 
persistence should be reviewed separately.

—
Denis

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:45 AM, Alexey Goncharuk  
> wrote:
> 
> Dmitriy,
> 
> The reason behind this is the need to to be able to evict and load pages to
> disk, thus we need to preserve a PageId->Pointer mapping in memory. In
> order to do this in the most efficient way, we need to know in advance all
> the address ranges we work with. We can add dynamic memory extension for
> persistence-enabled config, but this will add yet another step of
> indirection when resolving every page address, which adds a noticeable
> performance penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 2017-08-02 10:37 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dima,
>>> 
>>> Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why.
>>> 
>> 
>> Without knowing why, how can we make a decision?
>> 
>> Alexey Goncharuk, was it you who made the decision about not using
>> increments? Do know remember what was the reason?
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> The very problem is that before being started once on production
>>> environment, Ignite will typically be started hundred times on
>> developer's
>>> environment. I think that default should be ~10% of total RAM.
>>> 
>> 
>> Why not 80% of *free *RAM?
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
 wrote:
 
> Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled,
 memory
> is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.
> 
 
 Why?
 
 
> Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's
>> environment.
> 
 
 Agree, but why not in increments?
 
 
> 
> ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :
> 
>>> Why not allocate in increments automatically?
>> 
>> This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will
 grow
>> incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by
>> default).
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
>>> 
>>> Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want
>>> t o
>> guess. Why not allocate in increments automatically?
>>> 
>>> ⁣D.​
>>> 
>>> On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
 Denis,
 No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence,
>>> when
 80% of
 RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How
>> do
 you
 think, how many users tried it already?
 
 Guys,
 Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal
 thing?
 Take
 your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now.
>>> Do
> you
 fit
 to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with
>>> all
 defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
 allocate no
 more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any
>> problems.
 
 On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda >> 
> wrote:
 
> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
 aggressive
> to bring it down.
> 
> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM
>>> allocation
 on
 64
> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not
>>> heard
 of
 any
> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, ds

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Vladimir Ozerov
Free RAM is variable. For example, I can start Ignite before IDE (Eclipse,
or so), or after IDE. In the first case it will hang, in the send it won't.
Unstable.

To be clear - I propose to have "maxMemory" set to 10%, not
"initialMemory". It doesn't matter how exactly we reach it - in one hop, or
in several hops. What do matter, is that I do not bring user's PC down with
default settings.

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
>
> > Dima,
> >
> > Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why.
> >
>
> Without knowing why, how can we make a decision?
>
> Alexey Goncharuk, was it you who made the decision about not using
> increments? Do know remember what was the reason?
>
>
> >
> > The very problem is that before being started once on production
> > environment, Ignite will typically be started hundred times on
> developer's
> > environment. I think that default should be ~10% of total RAM.
> >
>
> Why not 80% of *free *RAM?
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled,
> > > memory
> > > > is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's
> environment.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agree, but why not in increments?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :
> > > >
> > > > > > Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will
> > > grow
> > > > > incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by
> default).
> > > > >
> > > > > —
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want
> > t o
> > > > > guess. Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ⁣D.​
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Denis,
> > > > > >> No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence,
> > when
> > > > > >> 80% of
> > > > > >> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How
> do
> > > you
> > > > > >> think, how many users tried it already?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Guys,
> > > > > >> Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal
> > > thing?
> > > > > >> Take
> > > > > >> your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now.
> > Do
> > > > you
> > > > > >> fit
> > > > > >> to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with
> > all
> > > > > >> defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
> > > > > >> allocate no
> > > > > >> more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any
> problems.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
> > > > > >> aggressive
> > > > > >>> to bring it down.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM
> > allocation
> > > on
> > > > > >> 64
> > > > > >>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not
> > heard
> > > of
> > > > > >> any
> > > > > >>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> —
> > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >  On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  I prefer option #1.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  ⁣D.​
> > > > > 
> > > > >  On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > > > >>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy
> > > > > >> maxMemory
> > > > > > defaults.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and
> > > maxMemory
> > > > > > settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always
> > allocates
> > > > > > maxMemory
> > > > > > size for performance reasons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it
> > causes
> > > > > >> OOME
> > > > > > exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level)
> and
> > > > > >> hurts
> > > > > > performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started
> on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > physical server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other
> > options:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults.
> > In
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > > case

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Alexey Goncharuk
Dmitriy,

The reason behind this is the need to to be able to evict and load pages to
disk, thus we need to preserve a PageId->Pointer mapping in memory. In
order to do this in the most efficient way, we need to know in advance all
the address ranges we work with. We can add dynamic memory extension for
persistence-enabled config, but this will add yet another step of
indirection when resolving every page address, which adds a noticeable
performance penalty.

As far as allocating 80% of available RAM - I was against this even for
In-memory mode and still think that this is a wrong default. Looking at
free RAM is even worse because it gives you undefined behavior.

2017-08-02 10:37 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
>
> > Dima,
> >
> > Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why.
> >
>
> Without knowing why, how can we make a decision?
>
> Alexey Goncharuk, was it you who made the decision about not using
> increments? Do know remember what was the reason?
>
>
> >
> > The very problem is that before being started once on production
> > environment, Ignite will typically be started hundred times on
> developer's
> > environment. I think that default should be ~10% of total RAM.
> >
>
> Why not 80% of *free *RAM?
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled,
> > > memory
> > > > is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's
> environment.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agree, but why not in increments?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :
> > > >
> > > > > > Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will
> > > grow
> > > > > incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by
> default).
> > > > >
> > > > > —
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want
> > t o
> > > > > guess. Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ⁣D.​
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Denis,
> > > > > >> No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence,
> > when
> > > > > >> 80% of
> > > > > >> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How
> do
> > > you
> > > > > >> think, how many users tried it already?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Guys,
> > > > > >> Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal
> > > thing?
> > > > > >> Take
> > > > > >> your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now.
> > Do
> > > > you
> > > > > >> fit
> > > > > >> to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with
> > all
> > > > > >> defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
> > > > > >> allocate no
> > > > > >> more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any
> problems.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
> > > > > >> aggressive
> > > > > >>> to bring it down.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM
> > allocation
> > > on
> > > > > >> 64
> > > > > >>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not
> > heard
> > > of
> > > > > >> any
> > > > > >>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> —
> > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >  On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  I prefer option #1.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  ⁣D.​
> > > > > 
> > > > >  On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > > > >>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy
> > > > > >> maxMemory
> > > > > > defaults.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and
> > > maxMemory
> > > > > > settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always
> > allocates
> > > > > > maxMemory
> > > > > > size for performance reasons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it
> > causes
> > > > > >> OOME
> > > > > > exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level)
> and
> > > > > >> hurts
> > > > > > performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started
> on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > same
> > >

Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
wrote:

> Dima,
>
> Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why.
>

Without knowing why, how can we make a decision?

Alexey Goncharuk, was it you who made the decision about not using
increments? Do know remember what was the reason?


>
> The very problem is that before being started once on production
> environment, Ignite will typically be started hundred times on developer's
> environment. I think that default should be ~10% of total RAM.
>

Why not 80% of *free *RAM?


>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled,
> > memory
> > > is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.
> > >
> >
> > Why?
> >
> >
> > > Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's environment.
> > >
> >
> > Agree, but why not in increments?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :
> > >
> > > > > Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > > >
> > > > This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will
> > grow
> > > > incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by default).
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want
> t o
> > > > guess. Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > > > >
> > > > > ⁣D.​
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Denis,
> > > > >> No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence,
> when
> > > > >> 80% of
> > > > >> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How do
> > you
> > > > >> think, how many users tried it already?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Guys,
> > > > >> Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal
> > thing?
> > > > >> Take
> > > > >> your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now.
> Do
> > > you
> > > > >> fit
> > > > >> to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with
> all
> > > > >> defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
> > > > >> allocate no
> > > > >> more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any problems.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
> > > > >> aggressive
> > > > >>> to bring it down.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM
> allocation
> > on
> > > > >> 64
> > > > >>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not
> heard
> > of
> > > > >> any
> > > > >>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> —
> > > > >>> Denis
> > > > >>>
> > > >  On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  I prefer option #1.
> > > > 
> > > >  ⁣D.​
> > > > 
> > > >  On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > > >>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy
> > > > >> maxMemory
> > > > > defaults.
> > > > >
> > > > > Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and
> > maxMemory
> > > > > settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always
> allocates
> > > > > maxMemory
> > > > > size for performance reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it
> causes
> > > > >> OOME
> > > > > exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and
> > > > >> hurts
> > > > > performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on
> > > > >> the
> > > > > same
> > > > > physical server.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other
> options:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults.
> In
> > > > >> this
> > > > > case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on
> > one
> > > > > machine
> > > > > even on 64 bit systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance,
> > > > >> max(0.3 *
> > > > > availableMemory, 1Gb).
> > > > > This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32
> bit
> > > > > platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the
> same
> > > > > machine.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts and/or other options?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Sergey.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Vladimir Ozerov
Dima,

Probably folks who worked closely with storage know why. However, even
increments will not help us. Most developers work on laptops. Common laptop
has 8-16 Gb RAM today. OS and working programs typically consume about a
half. So, for example, I have 8Gb total, 4Gb consumed, 4Gb free. And Ignite
will try to allocate up to 6.5Gb. Even if it is done incrementally, once I
tried to upload more than 4Gb of data, my laptop will hang silently, and
tomorrow I would tell my fellow engineers "Tried Ignite, it hanged, so I
have to reboot".

The very problem is that before being started once on production
environment, Ignite will typically be started hundred times on developer's
environment. I think that default should be ~10% of total RAM.

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
>
> > Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled,
> memory
> > is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.
> >
>
> Why?
>
>
> > Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's environment.
> >
>
> Agree, but why not in increments?
>
>
> >
> > ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :
> >
> > > > Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > >
> > > This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will
> grow
> > > incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by default).
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want t o
> > > guess. Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > > >
> > > > ⁣D.​
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> > > >> Denis,
> > > >> No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence, when
> > > >> 80% of
> > > >> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How do
> you
> > > >> think, how many users tried it already?
> > > >>
> > > >> Guys,
> > > >> Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal
> thing?
> > > >> Take
> > > >> your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now. Do
> > you
> > > >> fit
> > > >> to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with all
> > > >> defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
> > > >> allocate no
> > > >> more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any problems.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
> > > >> aggressive
> > > >>> to bring it down.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM allocation
> on
> > > >> 64
> > > >>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not heard
> of
> > > >> any
> > > >>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> —
> > > >>> Denis
> > > >>>
> > >  On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > > 
> > >  I prefer option #1.
> > > 
> > >  ⁣D.​
> > > 
> > >  On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > >>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy
> > > >> maxMemory
> > > > defaults.
> > > >
> > > > Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and
> maxMemory
> > > > settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
> > > > maxMemory
> > > > size for performance reasons.
> > > >
> > > > As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes
> > > >> OOME
> > > > exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and
> > > >> hurts
> > > > performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on
> > > >> the
> > > > same
> > > > physical server.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
> > > >
> > > > - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In
> > > >> this
> > > > case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on
> one
> > > > machine
> > > > even on 64 bit systems.
> > > >
> > > > - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance,
> > > >> max(0.3 *
> > > > availableMemory, 1Gb).
> > > > This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
> > > > platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
> > > > machine.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts and/or other options?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Sergey.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-02 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
wrote:

> Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled, memory
> is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.
>

Why?


> Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's environment.
>

Agree, but why not in increments?


>
> ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :
>
> > > Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> >
> > This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will grow
> > incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by default).
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > >
> > > Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want t o
> > guess. Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> > >
> > > ⁣D.​
> > >
> > > On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> > >> Denis,
> > >> No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence, when
> > >> 80% of
> > >> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How do you
> > >> think, how many users tried it already?
> > >>
> > >> Guys,
> > >> Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal thing?
> > >> Take
> > >> your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now. Do
> you
> > >> fit
> > >> to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with all
> > >> defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
> > >> allocate no
> > >> more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any problems.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
> > >> aggressive
> > >>> to bring it down.
> > >>>
> > >>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM allocation on
> > >> 64
> > >>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not heard of
> > >> any
> > >>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
> > >>>
> > >>> —
> > >>> Denis
> > >>>
> >  On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> > 
> >  I prefer option #1.
> > 
> >  ⁣D.​
> > 
> >  On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> > >>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy
> > >> maxMemory
> > > defaults.
> > >
> > > Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
> > > settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
> > > maxMemory
> > > size for performance reasons.
> > >
> > > As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes
> > >> OOME
> > > exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and
> > >> hurts
> > > performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on
> > >> the
> > > same
> > > physical server.
> > >
> > > I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
> > >
> > > - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In
> > >> this
> > > case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
> > > machine
> > > even on 64 bit systems.
> > >
> > > - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance,
> > >> max(0.3 *
> > > availableMemory, 1Gb).
> > > This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
> > > platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
> > > machine.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thoughts and/or other options?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sergey.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread Vladimir Ozerov
Please see original Sergey's message - when persistence is enabled, memory
is not allocated incrementally, maxSize is used.

But this is a problem even for in-memory case. Consider that I wanted to
load several gigs of data as an experiment on my laptop - frequent
scenario. First several seconds it works fine. Then it starts swapping and
machine becomes unresponsive.

Default settings must allow for normal work on developer's environment.

ср, 2 авг. 2017 г. в 1:10, Denis Magda :

> > Why not allocate in increments automatically?
>
> This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will grow
> incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by default).
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> >
> > Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want t o
> guess. Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> >
> > ⁣D.​
> >
> > On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> >> Denis,
> >> No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence, when
> >> 80% of
> >> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How do you
> >> think, how many users tried it already?
> >>
> >> Guys,
> >> Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal thing?
> >> Take
> >> your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now. Do you
> >> fit
> >> to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with all
> >> defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
> >> allocate no
> >> more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any problems.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>
> >>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
> >> aggressive
> >>> to bring it down.
> >>>
> >>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM allocation on
> >> 64
> >>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not heard of
> >> any
> >>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Denis
> >>>
>  On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> 
>  I prefer option #1.
> 
>  ⁣D.​
> 
>  On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> >>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy
> >> maxMemory
> > defaults.
> >
> > Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
> > settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
> > maxMemory
> > size for performance reasons.
> >
> > As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes
> >> OOME
> > exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and
> >> hurts
> > performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on
> >> the
> > same
> > physical server.
> >
> > I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
> >
> > - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In
> >> this
> > case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
> > machine
> > even on 64 bit systems.
> >
> > - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance,
> >> max(0.3 *
> > availableMemory, 1Gb).
> > This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
> > platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
> > machine.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts and/or other options?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sergey.
> >>>
> >>>
>
>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread Denis Magda
> Why not allocate in increments automatically?

This is exactly how the allocation works right now. The memory will grow 
incrementally until the max size is reached (80% of RAM by default).

—
Denis

> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 PM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want t o guess. 
> Why not allocate in increments automatically?
> 
> ⁣D.​
> 
> On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov  
> wrote:
>> Denis,
>> No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence, when
>> 80% of
>> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How do you
>> think, how many users tried it already?
>> 
>> Guys,
>> Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal thing?
>> Take
>> your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now. Do you
>> fit
>> to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with all
>> defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
>> allocate no
>> more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any problems.
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> 
>>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
>> aggressive
>>> to bring it down.
>>> 
>>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM allocation on
>> 64
>>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not heard of
>> any
>>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>> 
 On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
 
 I prefer option #1.
 
 ⁣D.​
 
 On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy
>> maxMemory
> defaults.
> 
> Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
> settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
> maxMemory
> size for performance reasons.
> 
> As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes
>> OOME
> exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and
>> hurts
> performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on
>> the
> same
> physical server.
> 
> I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
> 
> - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In
>> this
> case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
> machine
> even on 64 bit systems.
> 
> - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance,
>> max(0.3 *
> availableMemory, 1Gb).
> This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
> platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
> machine.
> 
> 
> Thoughts and/or other options?
> 
> Thanks,
> Sergey.
>>> 
>>> 



Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread dsetrakyan
Vova, 1GB seems a bit too small for me, and frankly i do not want t o guess. 
Why not allocate in increments automatically?

⁣D.​

On Aug 1, 2017, 11:03 PM, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov  
wrote:
>Denis,
>No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence, when
>80% of
>RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How do you
>think, how many users tried it already?
>
>Guys,
>Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal thing?
>Take
>your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now. Do you
>fit
>to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with all
>defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold
>allocate no
>more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any problems.
>
>On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too
>aggressive
>> to bring it down.
>>
>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM allocation on
>64
>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not heard of
>any
>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>> > On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
>> >
>> > I prefer option #1.
>> >
>> > ⁣D.​
>> >
>> > On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Folks,
>> >>
>> >> I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy
>maxMemory
>> >> defaults.
>> >>
>> >> Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
>> >> settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
>> >> maxMemory
>> >> size for performance reasons.
>> >>
>> >> As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes
>OOME
>> >> exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and
>hurts
>> >> performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on
>the
>> >> same
>> >> physical server.
>> >>
>> >> I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
>> >>
>> >> - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In
>this
>> >> case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
>> >> machine
>> >>  even on 64 bit systems.
>> >>
>> >>  - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance,
>max(0.3 *
>> >>  availableMemory, 1Gb).
>> >>  This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
>> >> platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
>> >> machine.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts and/or other options?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Sergey.
>>
>>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread Denis Magda
Vladimir,

80% allocation approach was implemented in AI 2.0. I personally explained users 
on the forums its behavior.

Actually, dynamic vs static memory allocation scenarios were analyzed and 
discussed long time ago and eventually we decided to go for with the former:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Page-Memory-behavior-with-default-memory-policy-td16716.html

I don’t see anything harmful with the dynamic allocation. Operating systems are 
sophisticated enough to leverage from swapping when there are to many processes 
running that complete for RAM. Never had any issue with this on my local 
laptop. 

There will be even more benefits for production scenarios when a server has a 
plenty of RAM available and not that many applications running. If to stick to 
the static allocation approach it will require to set a specific value all the 
time depending on a hardware. This is what we wanted to avoid.

—
Denis


> On Aug 1, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Vladimir Ozerov  wrote:
> 
> Denis,
> No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence, when 80% of
> RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How do you
> think, how many users tried it already?
> 
> Guys,
> Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal thing? Take
> your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now. Do you fit
> to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with all
> defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold allocate no
> more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any problems.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too aggressive
>> to bring it down.
>> 
>> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM allocation on 64
>> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not heard of any
>> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
>>> 
>>> I prefer option #1.
>>> 
>>> ⁣D.​
>>> 
>>> On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
 Folks,
 
 I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy maxMemory
 defaults.
 
 Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
 settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
 maxMemory
 size for performance reasons.
 
 As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes OOME
 exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and hurts
 performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on the
 same
 physical server.
 
 I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
 
 - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In this
 case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
 machine
 even on 64 bit systems.
 
 - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance, max(0.3 *
 availableMemory, 1Gb).
 This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
 platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
 machine.
 
 
 Thoughts and/or other options?
 
 Thanks,
 Sergey.
>> 
>> 



Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread Vladimir Ozerov
Denis,
No doubts you haven't heard about it - AI 2.1 with persistence, when 80% of
RAM is allocated right away, was released several days ago. How do you
think, how many users tried it already?

Guys,
Do you really think allocating 80% of available RAM is a normal thing? Take
your laptop and check how many available RAM you have right now. Do you fit
to remaining 20%? If not, then running AI with persistence with all
defaults will bring your machine down. This is insane. We shold allocate no
more than 1Gb, so that user can play with it without any problems.

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too aggressive
> to bring it down.
>
> IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM allocation on 64
> bit systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not heard of any
> other complaints in regards the default allocation size.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> >
> > I prefer option #1.
> >
> > ⁣D.​
> >
> > On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov <
> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy maxMemory
> >> defaults.
> >>
> >> Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
> >> settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
> >> maxMemory
> >> size for performance reasons.
> >>
> >> As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes OOME
> >> exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and hurts
> >> performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on the
> >> same
> >> physical server.
> >>
> >> I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
> >>
> >> - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In this
> >> case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
> >> machine
> >>  even on 64 bit systems.
> >>
> >>  - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance, max(0.3 *
> >>  availableMemory, 1Gb).
> >>  This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
> >> platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
> >> machine.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts and/or other options?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Sergey.
>
>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread Denis Magda
My vote goes for option #1 too. I don’t think that 80% is too aggressive to 
bring it down.

IGNITE-5717 was created to fix the issue of the 80% RAM allocation on 64 bit 
systems when Ignite works on top of 32 bit JVM. I’ve not heard of any other 
complaints in regards the default allocation size.

—
Denis
 
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:58 AM, dsetrak...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> I prefer option #1.
> 
> ⁣D.​
> 
> On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov 
>  wrote:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy maxMemory
>> defaults.
>> 
>> Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
>> settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
>> maxMemory
>> size for performance reasons.
>> 
>> As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes OOME
>> exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and hurts
>> performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on the
>> same
>> physical server.
>> 
>> I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
>> 
>> - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In this
>> case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
>> machine
>>  even on 64 bit systems.
>> 
>>  - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance, max(0.3 *
>>  availableMemory, 1Gb).
>>  This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
>> platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
>> machine.
>> 
>> 
>> Thoughts and/or other options?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Sergey.



Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread dsetrakyan
I prefer option #1.

⁣D.​

On Aug 1, 2017, 11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov 
 wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy maxMemory
>defaults.
>
>Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
>settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
>maxMemory
>size for performance reasons.
>
>As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes OOME
>exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and hurts
>performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on the
>same
>physical server.
>
>I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
>
>  - Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In this
>case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
>machine
>   even on 64 bit systems.
>
>   - Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance, max(0.3 *
>   availableMemory, 1Gb).
>   This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
>platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
>machine.
>
>
>Thoughts and/or other options?
>
>Thanks,
>Sergey.


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread Dmitry Pavlov
+1 to Sergey,
I think OOME may confuse user and and may spoil the user's impression at
first check of Apache Ignite.

вт, 1 авг. 2017 г. в 12:36, Vladimir Ozerov :

> +1
>
> 80% of RAM is way too aggressive. With this value virtually every user will
> have problems with OOME or excessive swapping during development. I would
> set maxMemory to some relatively small value, may be even less that 1Gb to
> let Ignite run smoothly on developer's laptops, and print a performance
> suggestion to increase it in production.
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Sergey Chugunov <
> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy maxMemory
> > defaults.
> >
> > Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
> > settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates
> maxMemory
> > size for performance reasons.
> >
> > As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes OOME
> > exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and hurts
> > performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on the same
> > physical server.
> >
> > I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
> >
> >- Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In this
> >case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
> > machine
> >even on 64 bit systems.
> >
> >- Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance, max(0.3 *
> >availableMemory, 1Gb).
> >This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
> >platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
> > machine.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts and/or other options?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sergey.
> >
>


Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size

2017-08-01 Thread Vladimir Ozerov
+1

80% of RAM is way too aggressive. With this value virtually every user will
have problems with OOME or excessive swapping during development. I would
set maxMemory to some relatively small value, may be even less that 1Gb to
let Ignite run smoothly on developer's laptops, and print a performance
suggestion to increase it in production.

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Sergey Chugunov 
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I would like to get back to the question about MemoryPolicy maxMemory
> defaults.
>
> Although MemoryPolicy may be configured with initial and maxMemory
> settings, when persistence is used MemoryPolicy always allocates maxMemory
> size for performance reasons.
>
> As default size of maxMemory is 80% of physical memory it causes OOME
> exceptions of 32 bit platforms (either on OS or JVM level) and hurts
> performance in setups when multiple Ignite nodes are started on the same
> physical server.
>
> I suggest to rethink these defaults and switch to other options:
>
>- Check whether platform is 32 or 64 bits and adapt defaults. In this
>case we still need to address the issue with multiple nodes on one
> machine
>even on 64 bit systems.
>
>- Lower defaults for maxMemory and allocate, for instance, max(0.3 *
>availableMemory, 1Gb).
>This option allows us to solve all issues with starting on 32 bit
>platforms and reduce instability with multiple nodes on the same
> machine.
>
>
> Thoughts and/or other options?
>
> Thanks,
> Sergey.
>