Denis, If what you are suggesting is true, then we can always allocate about 80% of available memory by default. By the way, it must also work on Windows, so we should definitely test it.
Alexey G, can you comment? D. On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Dmitriy, > > > Denis, it sounds like with this approach, in case of the over-allocation, > > the system will just get slower and slower and users will end up blaming > > Ignite for it. Am I understanding your suggestion correctly? > > > This will not happen (at least in Unix) unless all the nodes really used > all the allocated memory by putting data there or touching all the memory > range somehow else. > > > How was this handled in Ignite 1.9? > > > If you are talking about the legacy off-heap impl then we requested small > chunks of data from an operating system rather than a continuous memory > region as in the page memory. But I would think of the page memory as of > Java heap which also can request 8 GB continuous memory region on a 8 GB > machine following heap settings of an app but an operating system will not > return the whole range immediately unless Java app occupies the whole heap > or use special parameters. > > At all, I think it’s safe to use approach suggested by me unless I miss > something. > > — > Denis > > > On Apr 17, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Dmitriy, > >> > >> All the nodes will request its own continuous memory region that takes > >> 70-80% of all RAM from an underlying operation system. However, the > >> operating system will not outfit the nodes with physical pages mapped to > >> RAM immediately allowing every node's process to start successfully. The > >> nodes will communicate to RAM via a virtual memory which in its turn > will > >> give an access to physical pages whenever is needed applying low level > >> eviction and swapping techniques. > >> > > > > Denis, it sounds like with this approach, in case of the over-allocation, > > the system will just get slower and slower and users will end up blaming > > Ignite for it. Am I understanding your suggestion correctly? > > > > How was this handled in Ignite 1.9? > > > > D. > >
