You know better, go ahead! :)
Sergi
2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> we've discovered several problems regarding your "accumulation"
> approach.These are
>
> 1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary cache to
> permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent transactions in
> Service
> commiter
> 2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in memory
> 3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working with cache
> must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's node can evaluate
> logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with both types of
> execution flow : transactional and non-transactional.Another one
> problem is
> transaction id support at the user node. We would have handled all this
> issues and many more.
> 4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
>
> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed transaction. We put
> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to solve
> difficulties above .
>
> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>
> > The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions of operations
> on
> > a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan capacity
> > reasonably.
> >
> > Sergi
> >
> > 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of operations, would
> > not
> > > this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance degradation
> > >
> > > чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values you have
> read
> > > > during the tx.
> > > >
> > > > For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> > > >
> > > > put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> > > >
> > > > We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can be relatively
> > > easily
> > > > encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to implement one
> > to
> > > > make all this stuff usable.
> > > >
> > > > 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you easily will end
> up
> > > with
> > > > deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for your keys,
> > > > optimistic approach will work just fine.
> > > >
> > > > Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a thread for the
> > > > lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a lock on the key
> > > using
> > > > IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services, wait for all
> the
> > > > services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the same thread
> > while
> > > > keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all the Ignite
> > > > transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic here to be
> able
> > to
> > > > read this locked key.
> > > >
> > > > But again I do not recommend you using this approach until you have a
> > > > reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> > > >
> > > > Sergi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah, now i got it.
> > > > > There are some doubts on this approach
> > > > > 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no one altered
> the
> > > > > original values, you must check versions of other dependent keys.
> How
> > > > could
> > > > > we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of course) ?
> > > > > 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A introduce changes?
> > So
> > > no
> > > > > other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort of
> > pessimistic
> > > > > blocking)
> > > > > May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you very much for help. I will answer later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the services do not update key in place, but only generate
> new
> > > keys
> > > > > > augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same cache +
> > > > remember
> > > > > > the keys and versions participating in the transaction in some
> > > separate
> > > > > > atomic cache.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents by each
> > > > > Service:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Initial cache contents:
> > > > > > [k1 => v1]
> > > > > > [k2 => v2]
> > > > > > [k3 => v3]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cache contents after Service A:
> > > > > > [k1 => v1]
> > > > > > [k2 => v2]
> > > > > > [k3 => v3]
> > > > > > [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > > [k2x => v2a]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate
> atomic
> > > > cache
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cache contents after Service B:
> > > > > > [k1 => v1]
> > > > > > [k2 => v2]
> > > > > > [k3 => v3]
> > > > > > [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > > [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > > > [k3x => v3b]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> > > separate
> > > > > > atomic cache
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated keys and
> > > their
> > > > > > versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite
> transaction
> > > and
> > > > > > replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from k*x
> keys.
> > > The
> > > > > > successful result must be the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [k1 => v1a]
> > > > > > [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > > > [k3 => v3b]
> > > > > > [k1x => v1a]
> > > > > > [k2x => v2ab]
> > > > > > [k3x => v3b]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some
> > > separate
> > > > > > atomic cache
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But Committer Service also has to check that no one updated the
> > > > original
> > > > > > values before us, because otherwise we can not give any
> > > serializability
> > > > > > guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may need to
> > > check
> > > > > not
> > > > > > only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of any other
> > > keys
> > > > > end
> > > > > > result depends on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be outside
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [k1 => v1a]
> > > > > > [k2 => v2ab]
> > > > > > [k3 => v3b]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Makes sense?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > - what do u mean by saying "
> > > > > > > *in a single transaction checks value versions for all the old
> > > values
> > > > > > > and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every time
> you
> > > > > change
> > > > > > > value(in some service), you store it to *some special atomic
> > > > cache*
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > when all services ceased working, Service commiter got a
> > values
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > last versions.
> > > > > > > - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*"
> Service
> > > > > commiter
> > > > > > > persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> > > > > > > - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of version
> > > mismatch
> > > > or
> > > > > > TX
> > > > > > > timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it match?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the
> > > application
> > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following order:
> > > > > > > > - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] to
> > > [k1
> > > > =>
> > > > > > > v1a,
> > > > > > > > k2 => v2a]
> > > > > > > > - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3] to
> > [k2
> > > > =>
> > > > > > > v2ab,
> > > > > > > > k3 => v3b]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The change
> > > > > > > > from [ k1 => v1, k2 => v2, k3 => v3 ]
> > > > > > > > to [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > > > > > > > must happen in a single transaction.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a unique
> > > > > orchestrator
> > > > > > TX
> > > > > > > > identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the
> services.
> > > If
> > > > > > `otx`
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > set to some value it means that it is an intermediate key and
> > is
> > > > > > visible
> > > > > > > > only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key `otx`
> > must
> > > > be
> > > > > > > null -
> > > > > > > > it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a version
> of
> > > that
> > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to use
> > UUID.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Workflow is the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with `otx` =
> x
> > > and
> > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > this parameter to all the services.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Service A:
> > > > > > > > - does some computations
> > > > > > > > - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a] with TTL = Za
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX duration
> > after
> > > > > > Service
> > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx` = x
> > > > > > > > v2a has updated version `ver`
> > > > > > > > - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions to
> > the
> > > > > > > > orchestrator
> > > > > > > > or just stores it in some special atomic cache like
> > > > > > > > [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Service B:
> > > > > > > > - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it knows
> > `otx`
> > > =
> > > > x
> > > > > > > > - does computations
> > > > > > > > - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > > > > > > > - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2
> > ->
> > > > > ver2,
> > > > > > k3
> > > > > > > > -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> > > > > > > > - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> > > > > > > > [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > > > > > > > - in a single transaction checks value versions for all the
> > old
> > > > > values
> > > > > > > > and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > > > > > > > - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > > > > > > > - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just rollbacks
> and
> > > > > signals
> > > > > > > > to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PROFIT!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This approach even allows you to run independent parts of the
> > > graph
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one at a
> > > time).
> > > > > > Also
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > does not require inventing any special fault tolerance
> technics
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > > Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
> > intermediate
> > > > > > results
> > > > > > > > are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in case of
> > any
> > > > > crash
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I mean,
> we
> > > can
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not
> > > transaction
> > > > > > yet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi already
> > > > > mentioned,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX state
> > > over
> > > > a
> > > > > > > wire.
> > > > > > > > > Most
> > > > > > > > > > probably a kind of coordinator will be required still to
> > > manage
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > kinds
> > > > > > > > > > of failures. This task should be started with clean
> design
> > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > > explaining how we handle all these concurrent events. And
> > > only
> > > > > > then,
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > we understand all implications, we should move to
> > development
> > > > > > stage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Right
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some
> > > > predefined
> > > > > > > graph
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > distributed services to be invoked, calls them by
> some
> > > kind
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > RPC
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible
> for
> > > > > > managing
> > > > > > > > > > business
> > > > > > > > > > > > > scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> > scenarios.
> > > > They
> > > > > > > > > exchange
> > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN
> > > > > framework,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing from
> > > > > Microsoft
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in-house software?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> which
> > > > > fulfills
> > > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > logic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> > process)
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > controlled
> > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Orchestrator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For instance, *server1 *creates *variable A
> > *with
> > > > > value
> > > > > > 1,
> > > > > > > > > > > persists
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and sends
> > it
> > > > to*
> > > > > > > > server2.
> > > > > > > > > > > *The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
> with
> > > it
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > stores
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the work made by both servers must be
> > fulfilled
> > > > in
> > > > > > > *one*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because we need all information done, or
> > > > > > > nothing(rollbacked).
> > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is managed by orchestrator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> wrong
> > > > > > solution
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The case is the following, One starts
> > > transaction
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > node,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this transaction in another jvm node(or
> > > rollback
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > remotely).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because even if you make it work for some
> > > > > > simplistic
> > > > > > > > > > > scenario,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ready
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write many fault tolerance tests and make
> > > sure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > TXs
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gracefully
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> make
> > > sure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > performance drops after all your changes
> in
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe these conditions will be
> > met
> > > > and
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better solution to what problem? Sending
> TX
> > > to
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > node?
> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statement itself is already wrong. What
> > > > business
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> be
> > > done
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > efficient way at the application level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > KUZNETSOV
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why wrong ? You know the better
> solution?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> > > Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just serializing TX object and
> > > > deserializing
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningless, because other nodes
> > > > > participating
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > TX
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the new coordinator. This will
> require
> > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > changes,
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definitely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have fault tolerance and performance
> > > > issues.
> > > > > > IMO
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and it makes no sense to waste time
> on
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactionState
> > implememntation
> > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTxEntry's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed to be transferable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> Dmitriy
> > > > > > Setrakyan
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds a little scary to me
> that
> > > we
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > passing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around. Such object may contain
> all
> > > > sorts
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > context.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs to be passed across, we
> > should
> > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > special
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM,
> > > > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well, there a couple of issues
> > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proceeding.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At first, After transaction
> > > > > serialization
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deserialization
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > server, there is no txState. So
> > im
> > > > > going
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The last one is Deserialized
> > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > lacks
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > shared
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > field at TransactionProxyImpl.
> > > > Perhaps,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > injected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
> > > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while starting and continuing
> > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jvms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serialization exception in
> > > > > > > > writeExternalMeta
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Override public void
> > > > > > > > > > writeExternal(ObjectOutput
> > > > > > > > > > > > out)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throws
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IOException
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some meta is cannot be
> > > serialized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 17:25,
> > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I am starting to get
> > what
> > > > you
> > > > > > > want,
> > > > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concerns:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - What is the API for the
> > > proposed
> > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance of transaction
> created
> > > on
> > > > > > > > ignite(0)
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite(1). This is obviously
> > not
> > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > truly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - How will you synchronize
> > cache
> > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Say, you have one node that
> > > decided
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > commit,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writing within this
> > transaction.
> > > > How
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not call commit() and
> > rollback()
> > > > > > > > > > simultaneously?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - How do you make sure that
> > > either
> > > > > > > > commit()
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rollback()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > originator failed?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00
> > > Дмитрий
> > > > > > Рябов
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somefire...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my
> > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transferring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ownership from one node to
> > > > another
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > happened
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > originating node is gone
> > down.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:36 GMT+03:00
> > > > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Im aiming to span
> > transaction
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > threads,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jvms(soon).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > every node is able to
> > > rollback,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction.It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to transfer tx
> between
> > > > nodes
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different node(in the
> same
> > > > jvm).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
> > 15:20,
> > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean that you
> > want a
> > > > > > concept
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > transferring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ownership
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one node to another? My
> > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to update keys in a
> > > > transaction
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > threads
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parallel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --AG
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:01
> > GMT+03:00
> > > > > > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > > > > > KUZNETSOV
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well. Consider
> > > transaction
> > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > node,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > continued
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following test
> > > > describes
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > idea:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite ignite1 =
> > > ignite(0);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactions
> > > > > > transactions =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite1.transactions();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteCache<String,
> > > > Integer>
> > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite1.getOrCreateCache("
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > testCache");
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Transaction tx =
> > > > > > > > > transactions.txStart(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concurrency,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > isolation);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key1", 1);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key2", 2);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.stop();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > IgniteInternalFuture<Boolean>
> > > > > > > fut =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GridTestUtils.runAsync(()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ->
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> IgniteTransactions
> > > ts =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignite(1).transactions();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > Assert.assertNull(ts.tx());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Assert.assertEquals(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TransactionState.STOPPED,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ts.txStart(tx);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.ACTIVE,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key3",
> > 3);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertTrue(cache.remove("key2"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.commit();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return true;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > });
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fut.get();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > TransactionState.COMMITTED,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)1,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (long)cache.get("key1"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)3,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (long)cache.get("key3"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Assert.assertFalse(cache.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > containsKey("key2"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In method
> > > *ts.txStart(...)*
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > rebind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *tx*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public void
> > > > > txStart(Transaction
> > > > > > > > tx) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > TransactionProxyImpl
> > > > > > > > > > > transactionProxy =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (TransactionProxyImpl)tx;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cctx.tm
> > ().reopenTx(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transactionProxy.tx());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transactionProxy.
> > > > > > > > > > > bindToCurrentThread();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In method *reopenTx*
> we
> > > > alter
> > > > > > > > > > *threadMap*
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > binds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to current thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do u think about
> > it ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 7 мар. 2017 г. в
> > > 22:38,
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dma...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please share the
> > > rational
> > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have in mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2017,
> at
> > > 3:19
> > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > ALEKSEY
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all! Im
> > designing
> > > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node, and
> continued
> > > at
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > Has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anybody
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov
> Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > >
> > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > *Best Regards,*
> > >
> > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > >
> >
> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>
