Re: Re[2]: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

Is there an API version of the cluster deactivation? On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:28 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky wrote: > > > > > Hi Zhenya, > > Thanks for confirming performing checkpoints more often will help here. > > Hi Raymond ! > > > I have established this configuration so will experiment with

Re: Re[2]: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

Thank Zhenya. Currently we call Ignition.Stop() with the flag to allow jobs to complete. I assume when using deactivate we don;t need to call that, or is it still a good idea as a belt and braces shut down for the grid? Raymond On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:28 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky wrote: > > > >

Re[2]: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

  >Hi Zhenya, >  >Thanks for confirming performing checkpoints more often will help here. Hi Raymond ! >  >I have established this configuration so will experiment with settings little. >  >On a related note, is there any way to automatically trigger a checkpoint, for >instance as a

Re: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

Hi Zhenya, Thanks for confirming performing checkpoints more often will help here. I have established this configuration so will experiment with settings little. On a related note, is there any way to automatically trigger a checkpoint, for instance as a pre-shutdown activity? Checkpoints seem

Re: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

We are currently using AI 2.8.1 with the c# client. On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:12 PM Kirill Tkalenko wrote: > Hello, Raymond! What version are you using? > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ > -- Raymond Wilson Solution Architect,

Re: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

Hi Naveen, We currently have two data regions. A small one (for ingest), set to 128 Mb, and a larger one for requests (4Gb). We leave the checkpoint page buffer size at the default value, so this will be 1Gb for the larger region, and possibly 128Mb for the smaller region (if I recall the rules

Re: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

Hello, Raymond! What version are you using? -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

  >We have noticed that startup time for our server nodes has been slowly >increasing in time as the amount of data stored in the persistent store grows. >  >This appears to be closely related to recovery of WAL changes that were not >checkpointed at the time the node was stopped. >  >After

Re: Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

Hi Raymond Did you try checkpointPageBufferSize instead of time interval, we have used 24MB as checkpointPageBufferSize , working fine for us, we also have close to 12 TB of data and does take good 6 to 10 mts to bring up the node and become cluster active Regarding the no of partitions also, 128

Ever increasing startup times as data grow in persistent storage

We have noticed that startup time for our server nodes has been slowly increasing in time as the amount of data stored in the persistent store grows. This appears to be closely related to recovery of WAL changes that were not checkpointed at the time the node was stopped. After enabling debug

Re: Requesting mapping from grid failed issue with Ignite 2.9.0 and C# model with ICloneable interface but same was working with Ignite 2.8.1

Hi Pavel, This has worked for me by adding [QuerySqlField] for all fields. Thank you much. Thanks & Regards, Charlin On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 at 14:05, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Hi Charlin, > > I've filed a bug [1] > > However, it looks like [QuerySqlField] attributes are missing on >

Looking for feedback on the Ignite 3.0.0 Alpha

Igniters, I'm excited to announce that the first alpha build of the Ignite 3 is out and available for download! Ignite 3 is the new project that was initiated by the Ignite community last year. Please refer to this page if you want to learn more:

Re: Difference between Stopping and Closing Ignite on C#

Apologies - I misread the description of Stop(). Please ignore this thread. On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:50 PM Raymond Wilson wrote: > I've just been reading this article ( > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52780726/how-to-trigger-ignite-checkpoint-before-shutdown) > which indicates that

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Ignite 3.0.0-alpha1 Released

The Apache Ignite Community is pleased to announce the release of Apache Ignite 3.0.0-alpha1. Apache Ignite [1] is a distributed database for in-memory speed and high-performance computing. Last year, the Ignite community initiated the "Ignite 3" project [2]. The goal of the project is to

Difference between Stopping and Closing Ignite on C#

I've just been reading this article ( https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52780726/how-to-trigger-ignite-checkpoint-before-shutdown) which indicates that Ignition.Stop() will terminate a currently executing check point, but that Ignite.Close() will not. I can't seem to find a Close() method on

Re: Client stuck on startup

Okay, thanks Ilya . After it gets this issue, the app doesnt startup till I restart my server nodes. Is there anyway I can ensure clean shutdown when I face issues like this ? It looks like some ignite state is not cleaned up . regards, Veena. -- Sent from:

Re: Client stuck on startup

Hello! Shutdown hook means that JVM decided to stop. Probably due to thread creation error if you ask me. It seems that the node has never finished initialization, judging by that log. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пн, 11 янв. 2021 г. в 19:25, VeenaMithare : > >>Try to use some realistic

Re: Node Segmentation Error

Hello! It seems that node 8 was kicked out of cluster by node 7 after some timeout: [03:07:18,822][WARNING][tcp-disco-msg-worker-#2%MATCHERWORKER%][TcpDiscoverySpi] Timed out waiting for message delivery receipt (most probably, the reason is in long GC pauses on remote node; consider tuning GC

Re: Application closing after java.net.SocketTimeoutException

Hello! I don't think anyone is working on this issue currently. You may try to tackle it yourself if you wish, submit a patch for inclusion. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev сб, 9 янв. 2021 г. в 11:27, rakshita04 : > we increased the "failureDetectionTimeout" to 4 minutes in our xml , still > we

Re: not able to change keyspace name when Using 3rd Party Persistence (Cassandra) Together with Ignite Native Persistence

Hello! 1) Can you please elaborate? If you set this value in a cache store factory, it will keep this boolean value and deserialize it when node is started. I'm not entirely sure if Ignite will store cache store factory or cache store instance in the persistent cache configuration. My expectation

Re: 2.8.1 : INFO org.apache.ignite.spi.communication.tcp.TcpCommunicationSpi [] - Accepted incoming communication connection

This issue is also observed if two different clients exist on the same box. Steps to reproduce : 1. Both the clients are not running 2. Start the client1 3. Stop the client 1 and start client 2 . 4. The huge set of logs are visible on client 2 logs. regards, Veena. -- Sent from:

RE: Explicit Communication / Discovery port configuration on the client side needed ?

Hi, You don’t have to specify the communication settings explicitly, usually it’s ok to leave the defaults. This is indeed your case, if one port is already occupied, the next one is chosenYou can reduce it directly in your node configuration. But it’s static configuration and applicable only for

Explicit Communication / Discovery port configuration on the client side needed ?

Hi , 1. If we deploy more than one client on same machine - should we explicitly configure communication and discovery port for the client i.e. should we do the below : 2. The localPortRange for communicationport and discovery port is 100 . Why is this

Re[2]: Questions related to check pointing

  >Hi Zhenya, >  >Thanks for the pointers - I will look into them. >  >I have been doing some additional reading into this and discovered we are >using a 4.0 NFS client, which seems to be the first 'no-no'; we will look at >updating to use the 41 NFS client. >  >We have modified our default

Re: Questions related to check pointing

Hi Zhenya, Thanks for the pointers - I will look into them. I have been doing some additional reading into this and discovered we are using a 4.0 NFS client, which seems to be the first 'no-no'; we will look at updating to use the 41 NFS client. We have modified our default timer cadence for