Re: Cannot start/stop cache within lock or transaction

Is there documentation on which scenarios it can create a deadlock? So we can code around it. What we are seeing is pretty nasty. -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Cannot start/stop cache within lock or transaction

Hi Yakov, This is pretty easy to repro. Please find attached the source code project which reproduces this 100% of the time. If you could please suggest a workaround or time line for the fix. thanks and Regards, Rajeev ignite-deadlock.zip

Re: Cannot start/stop cache within lock or transaction

The issue cannot be reproduced in 1.4.0. It seems the bug was introduced in 1.5.0 -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Cannot start/stop cache within lock or transaction

This Threads seems to be stuck: - Name: exchange-worker-#34%null% State: TIMED_WAITING Total blocked: 3 Total waited: 28 Stack trace: sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method) java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.parkNanos(Unknown Source) org.apache.ignite.internal.util.future.GridFu

Re: Cannot start/stop cache within lock or transaction

Hi Yakov, The test will pass if you comment the line: "IgniteCache cache3 = ignite.getOrCreateCache(getConfig(*"cache3"*));" Question is why is creation of cache3 causing deadlock? Please note: 1. Lock is being acquired on cache2 2. clear is being called on cache1 The error being reported and r

Ignite Events Remote Filter

Hi, We wish to listen to remote events with a remote filter and local listener: https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/events#section-remote-events Our requirement is to entertain only those events on local listener which are allowed by remote filter. This is the API we are trying to use: https://ign

Re: Ignite Events Remote Filter

Thank you Guys! -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Renentrant Lock & deadlock

Hi, In line with a deadlock reported earlier , please see below another deadlock scenario, this time with renetrant locks: private void start2() { Ignite ignite = null; try{ ignite = Ignition.start("ignite-deadlock.xml"); IgniteCache cach

Deadlock on Node Remove and Add

Hello, In line with the already found 2 deadlock scenarios: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Renentrant-Lock-amp-deadlock-td17797.html https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6380# We found yet another deadlock scenario. Use case: 1. Bring up 2 nodes - n1 & n2 2. Kill one node (

Re: Threads waiting on cache reads

Thanks Alexey. Yes that was it. I wish the documentation had these details. -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Deadlock on Node Remove and Add

Yes - its the same. thanks -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Node failed to startup due to deadlock

Hi Alexey, Is there an associated defect in Jira? Is there an isolated & verified patch that can be backported to 2.0? thanks, Rajeev -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Renentrant Lock & deadlock

That one was with ignite.getOrCreate This one is with ignite.reentractLock. Are the both due to the same defect? -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Node failed to startup due to deadlock

Hi Alexey, We do have event listeners to handle data loss events. We do 3 things related to ignite (amongst other unrelated things) in the listener (btw, an instance of local listener if running on each node, these listeners have remote filters as well): 1. Read an Ignite cache 2. Publish a message

Re: Node failed to startup due to deadlock

Thanks Alexey. Do you have specific information on which operation? Like I said, the only in thread ignite operation we do is ignite Message. How are you seeing issues with cache operations? Are you saying reads are also a problem cause we do reads in ignite thread. Writes are in our own thread.

Re: Node failed to startup due to deadlock

Can you please also help us understand, how you diagnized the symptom? It is hard to understand deadlocks for distributed operations. -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

RE: Node failed to startup due to deadlock

Hi Alexey, Even after commenting all the code in the event handlers (and offloading to application threadpools), the problem persists. Your description about this related to topology changes, leads me to suspect this is the same defect as: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6380# I have

Ignite Affinity Latency

Hi, We are seeing higher latency form ignite affinity (single key)/compute (multiple keys) of 7ms compared to get/getall 700 microseconds. Is this as expected? Our implementation is based on the below examples: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/examples/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/e

Ignite Affinity Latency

Hi, We are seeing higher latency form ignite affinity (single key)/compute (multiple keys) of 7ms compared to get/getall 700 microseconds. Is this as expected? Our implementation is based on the below examples: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/examples/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/e

Affinity Compute latency

Hi All, We see a significant difference between the latency nos for affnityRun(single key)/compute(multiple keys) and get/getall. Our code is based on the below example: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/examples/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/examples/datagrid/CacheAffinityExample.java

Re: Ignite Affinity Latency

Thanks Andrew. The nos are an average (not 90+ percentile) over a period of 60 minutes! We use the default deployment mode which is Shared. We used 3 nodes M4.large instances. Throughput less than 200-300 TPS 1. Are the nos below your expectations? 2. Given the above, what changes are recommended

Re: Affinity Compute latency

Thanks Andrew. The nos are an average (not 90+ percentile) over a period of 60 minutes! We use the default deployment mode which is Shared. We used 3 nodes M4.large instances. Throughput less than 200-300 TPS 1. Are the nos below your expectations? 2. Given the above, what changes are recomm

Re: Ignite Affinity Latency

Not much - it is basically a filtering operation. The throughput is no more that 200-300 TPS tops -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

getAll Latency

Dear Ignite Community, We have been using ignite for close to year now - in production since a month. We use ignite as caching layer between the application (hosted in AWS) and Dynamodb. Below are the latency comparisions with DynamodB: Ignite: get: 800 microseconds getAll (10 items): 8 millisecon

Re: getAll Latency

Bump. -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

RE: getAll Latency

Hi Stan, Please find the below information. Num Nodes in Production: 7-9 Cache Mode: Partitioned, off heap Atomicity Mode: Transactional Concurrency Mode: Optimistic Isolation Mode: Serializable Please find the stacktrace attached (this is from stage environment). Unfortunately, it is in dynatrac

RE: getAll Latency

Sorry - pls delete this thread. I just reviewed our code and the bug is in our code. thank you. -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Queue Reliability & Failure Events

Dear All, I am looking for information on Partitioned Queue reliability and failure Events. For cache, we handle the below events to discover and recover from data loss and node failures: 1. EVT_CACHE_REBALANCE_PART_DATA_LOST (CacheRebalancingEvent) 2. EVT_NODE_LEFT (DiscoveryEvent) 3. EVT_NO

EntryProcessor and optimistic Transactions

Dear All, For the below Cache configuration: 1. AtomicityMode = transactional 2. transactionMode = Optimistic 3. ConsurrencyMode = Serializable Use case: 1. In Thread 1: invoke Entry Processor on item1 (key =k1) and not call any setValue (just reads) 2. Concurrently, in Thread 2: invoke Entry Proc

Re: EntryProcessor and Locks

Thanks. How do you use optimistic tx with Entry processor? The ConcurrencyMode and isolationMode can only be set when you start a tx. Are you saying we should call the entry processor within a tx with concurencymode Optimistic? thanks ! -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-u

Re: EntryProcessor and Locks

By the way, I requested subscribe several times. The one thing with subscription is that it floods my email box with messages from other threads as well. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/EntryProcessor-and-Locks-tp16150p16172.html Sent from the Ap

Re: EntryProcessor and Locks

What will happen for the reads when there is a concurrent write by some other process? Will we see OptimisticTransactionException or will be get stale reads (preferred in out use case). thanks! -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/EntryProcessor-and

Re: EntryProcessor and Locks

Hi Yakav, Our requirement is to just be able to read partial content of large cache items without any concurreny overhead. read committed guarantees are good enough. Are you saying the suggestion from afedotov (use entry processor within an optimistic, read committed transaction) will still serial

Re: EntryProcessor and Locks

I read the IgniteCompute API. Does it support affinityCall multiple keys at the same time? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/EntryProcessor-and-Locks-tp16150p16381.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: EntryProcessor and Locks

Can you please confirm the below? 1. Affinity call or for that matter call does not lock any cache entry. 2. It runs on the primary node of the partition holding the cache entry 3. Does not serialize any operation either locally or across the cluster 4. Why does the ignite docs mention about 1 phas