Re: Data Streamer error

Hi, @matt! I see in stack trace "Caused by: java.util.ConcurrentModificationException". May be your application concurrently changing your POJOs while Ignite in progress of marshaling? On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:04 AM, matt wrote: > Looks like it's a problem with the object

Data Streamer error

Hi, I have Ignite (version 1.7.0) setup to do streaming, and a autoFlushFrequency of 15 (for now) - in the logs, I'm getting this during processing - any ideas on what this is coming from? 2016-09-13T17:31:52,580 - ERROR [grid-data-loader-flusher-#55%null%:Slf4jLogger@112] - Runtime error caught

Re: Automatic Persistence Example - Demo

Thanks Denis, it worked!!! you made my day. I appreciate your efforts and suggestions. Regards Abhishek On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Looks like CLASSPATH env variable is ignored on this Linux distribution > side. You should refer to basic

Re: Query does not include objects added into Cache from within a transaction

Yes in theory I could know all changes I made. But in practice it will make application logic so much more complicated! E.g in one part of transaction I create an object and in some other part execute query which should include this object in result cursor taking into account WHERE and ORDER BY.

Re: Autonomous transaction

Got it. It's not possible then. I would recommend you to revisit your logic and check if it's possible to avoid using these features. I don't think nested and/or autonomous transactions will be supported in Ignite in a foreseeable future. -Val -- View this message in context:

Re: Write Behind data safety guarantees II

Hi, In current implementation write-behind store can lose writes even if only one nodes fails. This can be improved by adding backup queues [1], but it's not implemented yet. Of course, this will not help if you lose more nodes than number of backups you have (in this case data in memory is also

Re: Ignite Atomic Long

Hi, I'm using a wrapper to start the nodes as service. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Atomic-Long-tp7706p7720.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Ignite Atomic Long

Hi, This just means that the thread was interrupted. You should check the log before the exception to see what could be a reason. It also looks like you're using some kind of wrapper, probably it tried to stop the process? -Val -- View this message in context:

Re: Custom (de)serialization for a single field

Hi Josh, I think Binarylizable is the right choice. But you're right that you will have to write all the fields manually in this case. This works similar to Externalizable in plain Java serialization. -Val -- View this message in context:

Re: Query does not include objects added into Cache from within a transaction

If you're executing a query from the same transaction where you updated the data, I'm pretty sure you can find a workaround, because you know everything about the updates made within the transaction. Transactional SQL feature is mostly designed to avoid dirty reads in case a query transaction and

Re: Automatic Persistence Example - Demo

Looks like CLASSPATH env variable is ignored on this Linux distribution side. You should refer to basic documentation from Oracle (JRE/JDK owner) or use ignite.sh script in the following way: add MAIN_CLASS env variable referring to Demo class (export MAIN_CLASS=org.apache.ignite.schema.Demo)

Re: Query does not include objects added into Cache from within a transaction

It depends on when someone from the community takes over this task getting it done. If to refer to previous discussion we should expect the feature appear in Ignite in the beginning of the next year. — Denis > On Sep 13, 2016, at 3:15 AM, akaptsan wrote: > > I would say

Re: Nested Transactions

You can work with Ignite using JDBC [1] or ODBC [2] drivers executing SQL queries. DML and DDL should be a part of the product soon. Until they are not available you need to use Ignite Cache API for transaction executions. However, nested transactions are not a part of Ignite. [1]

Re: Custom (de)serialization for a single field

Hello Josh, I think BinarySerializer will be matched. Look at the article[1] and javadoc[2]. [1]: http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/binary-marshaller#configuring-binary-objects [2]: https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.5.0.final/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/binary/BinarySerializer.html On

Re: Nested Transactions

Hello, Unfortunately, Ignite has not support anything from the list (nested transaction, autonomous transactions, DDL) yet. I think, if you want to use key-value approach, changes of logic will be significant. On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:50 PM, akaptsan wrote: > We have OLTP

Custom (de)serialization for a single field

I have an object I need to cache which has more than 100 fields. One particular field needs some custom handling when being (de)serialized. I've considered implementing Binarylizable; however, I don't care to manage all of the fields via the read and write binary methods. Where should I look in

Re: Trouble with Using Ignite 1.8 ODBC Driver

You can use installer from here: [1]. What kind of problem do you mean? [1] - https://github.com/isapego/ignite/tree/ignite-3868/modules/platforms/cpp/odbc/install Best Regards, Igor On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:57 PM, amitpa wrote: > Also is this a problem with Visual

Services not injected into CacheStore if deployed using Spring configuration

Hello, everyone. Recently, while using service injection in custom CacheStore implementation, we faced the problem that with startup deployment of services and caches through Spring, the services are not injected into CacheStore. It doesn't happen when we deploy our services and caches

Re: Trouble with Using Ignite 1.8 ODBC Driver

Also is this a problem with Visual Studio 2015 and Ignite and it doesnt happen when we use other VS versions like 2010? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Trouble-with-Using-Ignite-1-8-ODBC-Driver-tp7656p7707.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users

Ignite Atomic Long

Hi, I'm having some trouble with atomic long inside my compute job. I'm getting the following exception once a while: FINEST|4532/0|Service AntheusMatchServerNode|16-09-13 10:51:23|[13:51:23,382][SEVERE][pub-#46%null%][GridCacheAtomicLongImpl] Failed to add and get:

Re: JVM tuning

Hi Alexey, thank you for your response. I've implemented your suggestions and now my cluster is with 100% cpu utilization. Best regards, Caio -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/JVM-tuning-tp7532p7705.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing

Re: Cache Problems

It looks like known issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2714 On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:13 AM, kromulan wrote: > I've had same problem in the past but it was a memory leak in indexing > code. > Do you use indexing on your entities ? > > > > -- > View this

Re: Query does not include objects added into Cache from within a transaction

I would say it's critical problem. Can you estimate when it will be fixed? (I don't have access to jira) -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Query-does-not-include-objects-added-into-Cache-from-within-a-transaction-tp7651p7703.html Sent from the

Re: Nested Transactions

We have OLTP system based on Oracle. And we havily use the nested transactions We would like to replace Oracle with Ignite. That's why we need all this features: nested transaction, autonomous transactions, DDL ... -- View this message in context:

Re: Write Behind data safety guarantees II

You can have also the case both nodes crash ... The bottom line is that a write loss can occur in any system. I am always surprised to hear even senior consultants saying that in a high reliability database no write loss can occur or the risk is low (think about the human factor! Eg an admin

Re: Re: Increase Ignite instances can't increase the speed of compute

Only 118 jobs for this test. Bob From: Taras Ledkov Date: 2016-09-13 14:52 To: user@ignite.apache.org Subject: Re: Re: Increase Ignite instances can't increase the speed of compute Hi, How many MatchingJobs do you submit? On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:29 PM, 胡永亮/Bob

Re: SQL Queries - propagate "new" CacheConfiguration.queryEntities over the cluster on an already started cache

Great news! Could you please give me a hint how to access this function? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/SQL-Queries-propagate-new-CacheConfiguration-queryEntities-over-the-cluster-on-an-already-started-cae-tp5802p7699.html Sent from the Apache

Re: Autonomous transaction

Not exactly. Authonomous transaction should see uncommited data of parent transaction -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Autonomous-transaction-tp7672p7698.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Cache Problems

I've had same problem in the past but it was a memory leak in indexing code. Do you use indexing on your entities ? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Cache-Problems-tp7477p7697.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at

Write Behind data safety guarantees II

Hi, I've been trying to find information on cache persistence write behind behavior that might lead to entries not being written to the persistent store. Most notably: what happens in the following scenario: * Cache 'cache' has two backup copies on nodes A and B respectively and is

Re: Re: Increase Ignite instances can't increase the speed of compute

Hi, How many MatchingJobs do you submit? On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:29 PM, 胡永亮/Bob wrote: > Hello, Vladislav > > The following is some code. > > ... > IgniteCompute compute = ignite.compute();//.withAsync(); > > compute.run(new