Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size
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
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
Sergey, ticket looks good to me (https://issues.apache.org/ jira/browse/IGNITE-6003). --Yakov
Re: [IGNITE-5717] improvements of MemoryPolicy default size
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
+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
+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. >