As an update, this issue has been included into Ignite 2.7.6 release scheduled for this month.
- Denis On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:37 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello! > > We did not change it since it should never be a problem anymore. The > rationale is that I can't prove that some history size value will work and > cause no further issues. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > вт, 6 авг. 2019 г. в 22:25, Denis Magda <[email protected]>: > >> Andrey, Ilya, as part of IGNITE-11767, have we set the history size to 0 >> for the clients? If haven't what is a rationale? >> >> - >> Denis >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:56 AM Andrei Aleksandrov < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mahesh, >>> >>> Yes, it's a problem related to IGNITE_EXCHANGE_HISTORY_SIZE. Ignite >>> stored the data for the last 1000 exchanges. >>> >>> It generally can be required for the case when the coordinator was >>> changed and new coordinator required to load last exchange history. >>> >>> Exist two problems here: >>> >>> 1)Client nodes can't be a coordinator. So there is no reason to store >>> 1000 entries there. Will be better to set this option to some small >>> value or zero for client nodes. >>> 2)Server nodes also don't require 1000 entries. The required number of >>> exchange history can depend on the number of server nodes. I suggest >>> change the default value to small value. >>> >>> Here is the ticket related to this problem: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11767 >>> >>> It fixed and should be available in Ignite 2.8 where these exchanges >>> will take less memory. >>> >>> BR, >>> Andrei >>> >>> On 2019/08/03 01:09:19, Mahesh Renduchintala <[email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> > The clients we use have memory ranging from 4GB to 8GB. OOM was >>> produced on all these clients....some sooner, some little later, bit >>> always was seen.> >>> > >>> > The workaround is still stable for more than 48 hours now.> >>> > >>> > >>> >>
