Vladimir,
The main problem which I'am trying to solve is storing data in memory in a
compression form via Ignite.
The main goal is using memory more effectivelly.
>> here the much simpler step would be to full
compression on per-cache basis rather than dealing with per-fields case.
Please explain your idea. Compess data by memory-page?
Is it compatible with quering and indexing?
>> In the end, if user would like to compress particular field, he can
always to it on his own
I think we mustn't think in this way, if user need something he trying to
choose a tool which has this feature OOTB.
2017-06-08 12:53 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> Igniters,
>
> Honestly I still do not see how to apply it gracefully this feature ti
> Ignite. And overall approach to compress only particular fields looks
> overcomplicated to me. Remember, that our main use case is an application
> without classes on the server. It means that any kind of annotations are
> inapplicable. To be more precise: proper API should be implemented to
> handle no-class case (e.g. how would build such an object through
> BinaryBuilder without a class?), and only then add annotations as
> convenient addition to more basic API.
>
> It seems to me that full implementation, which takes in count proper
> "classless" API, changes to binary metadata to reflect compressed fields,
> changes to SQL, changes to binary protocol, and porting to .NET and CPP,
> will yield very complex solution with little value to the product.
>
> Instead, as I proposed earlier, it seems that we'd better start with the
> problem we are trying to solve. Basically, compression could help in two
> cases:
> 1) Transmitting data over wire - it should be implemented on communication
> layer and should not affect binary serialization component a lot.
> 2) Storing data in memory - here the much simpler step would be to full
> compression on per-cache basis rather than dealing with per-fields case.
>
> In the end, if user would like to compress particular field, he can always
> to it on his own, and set already compressed field to our BinaryObject.
>
> Vladimir.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Valentin,
> >
> > Yes, I have the prototype[1][2]
> >
> > You can see an example of Java class[3] that I used in my benchmark.
> > For example:
> > class Foo {
> > @BinaryCompression
> > String data;
> > }
> > If user make decision to store the object in compressed form, he can use
> > the annotation @BinaryCompression as shown above.
> > It means annotated field 'data' will be compressed at marshalling.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1951
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5226
> > [3]
> > https://github.com/daradurvs/ignite-compression/blob/
> > master/src/main/java/ru/daradurvs/ignite/compression/model/Audit1F.java
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-06-08 2:04 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Vyacheslav, Anton,
> > >
> > > Are there any ideas and/or prototypes for the API? Your design
> > suggestions
> > > seem to make sense, but I would like to see how it all this will like
> > from
> > > user's standpoint.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Антон Чураев <churaev...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vyacheslav, correct me if something wrong
> > > >
> > > > We could provide opportunity of choose between CPU usage and MEM/NET
> > > usage
> > > > for users by compression some attributes of stored objects.
> > > > You have learned design, and it is possible to localize changes in
> > > > marshalling without performance affect and current functionality.
> > > >
> > > > I think, that it's usefull for our project and users.
> > > > Community, what do you think about this proposal?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-06 17:29 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > In short,
> > > > >
> > > > > During marshalling a fields is represented as BinaryFieldAccessor
> > which
> > > > > manages its marshalling. It checks if the field is marked by
> > annotation
> > > > > @BinaryCompression, in that case - binary representation of field
> > > (bytes
> > > > > array) will be compressed. It will be marked as compressed by types
> > > > > constant (GridBinaryMarshaller.COMPRESSED), after this the
> > compressed
> > > > > bytes
> > > > > array wiil be include in binary representation of whole object.
> Note,
> > > > > header of marshalled object will not be compressed. Compression
> > > affected
> > > > > only object's field representation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Objects in IgniteCache is represented as BinaryObject which is
> > wrapper
> > > > over
> > > > > bytes array of marshalled object.
> > > > > BinaryObject provides some usefull methods, which are used by
> Ignite
> > > > > systems.
> > > > > For example, the Queries use BinaryObject#field method, which
> > > > deserializes
> > > > > only field of object, without deserializing of whole object.
> > > > > BinaryObject#field method during deserialization, if meets the
> > constant
> > > > of
> > > > > compressed type, decompress this bytes array, then continue
> > > unmarshalling
> > > > > as usual.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, I introduced the Compressor interface in IgniteConfigurations,
> > it
> > > > > allows user to use own implementation of compressor - it is the
> > > > requirement
> > > > > in the task[1].
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I know, Vladimir Ozerov doesn't like the idea of granting
> > > this
> > > > > opportunity to the user.
> > > > > In that case we can choose a compression algorithm which we will
> > > provide
> > > > by
> > > > > default and will move the interface to internals of binary
> > > > infractructure.
> > > > > For this case I've prepared benchmarked, which I've sent earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > I vote for ZSTD algorithm[2], it provides good compression ratio
> and
> > > good
> > > > > throughput. It has implementation in Java, .NET and C++, and has
> > > > > ASF-friendly license, we can use it in the all Ignite platforms.
> > > > > You can look at an assessment of this algorithm in my benchmark's
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3592
> > > > > [2]https://github.com/facebook/zstd
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-06-06 16:02 GMT+03:00 Антон Чураев <churaev...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Looks good for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could You propose design of implementation in couple of
> sentences?
> > > > > > So that we can estimate the completeness and complexity of the
> > > > proposal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-06-06 15:26 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course, the solution does not affect on existing
> > > implementation. I
> > > > > > mean,
> > > > > > > there is no changes if user not use the annotation
> > > > @BinaryCompression.
> > > > > > (no
> > > > > > > performance changes)
> > > > > > > Only if user make decision to use compression on specific field
> > or
> > > > > fields
> > > > > > > of a class - in that case compression will be used at
> marshalling
> > > in
> > > > > > > relation to annotated fields.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-06-06 15:10 GMT+03:00 Антон Чураев <churaev...@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it possible to propose implementation that can be switched
> > on
> > > > > > > on-demand?
> > > > > > > > In this case it should not affect performance of current
> > > solution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I mean, that users should make decision what is more
> important
> > > for
> > > > > > them:
> > > > > > > > throutput or memory/net usage.
> > > > > > > > May be they will be choose not all objects, or only some
> > > attributes
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > objects for compress.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-06-06 14:48 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Conclusion:
> > > > > > > > > Provided solution allows reduce size of an object in
> > > IgniteCache
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > cost of throughput reduction (small - in some cases), it
> > > depends
> > > > on
> > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > object which will be compressed and compression algorithm.
> > > > > > > > > I mean, we can make more effective use of memory, and in
> some
> > > > cases
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > reduce loading of the interconnect. (replication,
> > rebalancing)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Especially, it will be particularly useful for object's
> > fields
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > large text (>~ 250 bytes) and can be effectively
> compressed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-06-06 12:00 GMT+03:00 Антон Чураев <
> > churaev...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, thank you! But could you please provide a
> > > > conclusions
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > proposals based on this benchmarks?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2017-06-06 11:28 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Excel-pages:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1). "Compression ratio (2)" - shows object size, with
> > > > > compression
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > without compression. (Conditions: literal text)
> > > > > > > > > > > 1st graph shows compression ratios of using different
> > > > > compression
> > > > > > > > > > algrithms
> > > > > > > > > > > depending on size of compressed field.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd graph shows evaluation of size of objects depending
> > on
> > > > > sizes
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > compression algorithms.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2). "Compression ratio (1)" - shows object size, with
> > > > > compression
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > without compression. (Conditions: badly compressed
> > > character
> > > > > > > > sequence)
> > > > > > > > > > > 1st graph shows compression ratios of using different
> > > > > compression
> > > > > > > > > > > algrithms depending on size of compressed field.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd graph shows evaluation of size of objects depending
> > on
> > > > > sizes
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > compression algorithms.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) 'put-avg" - shows average time of the "put"
> operation
> > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > size
> > > > > > > > > > > and compression algorithms.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4) 'put-thrpt" - shows throughput of the "put"
> operation
> > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > size
> > > > > > > > > > > and compression algorithms.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 5) 'get-avg" - shows average time of the "get"
> operation
> > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > size
> > > > > > > > > > > and compression algorithms.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 6) 'get-thrpt" - shows throughput of the "get"
> operation
> > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > size
> > > > > > > > > > > and compression algorithms.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2017-06-06 10:59 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I am not sure how to interpret the graphs?
> > What
> > > > are
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > looking
> > > > > > > > > > > > at?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared some benchmarking. Results [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And I've prepared the evaluation in the form of
> > > diagrams
> > > > > [2].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that helps to interest the community and
> > > > > accelerates a
> > > > > > > > > > reaction
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this improvment :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/daradurvs/
> > ignite-compression/tree/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > master/src/main/resources/result
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/
> > > > > > > > 0B2CeUAOgrHkoMklyZ25YTEdKcEk/
> > > > > > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-05-24 9:49 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, any thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-05-16 13:40 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I've prepared the PR to show my idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/
> ignite/pull/1951/files
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> About querying - I've just copied existing tests
> > and
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > annotated
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> testing data.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/
> > > > ignite/pull/1951/files#diff-
> > > > > > > c19a9d
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> f4058141d059bb577e75244764
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It means fields which will be marked by
> > > > > @BinaryCompression
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> compressed at marshalling via BinaryMarshaller.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This solution has no effect on existing data or
> > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > architecture.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'll be glad to see your thougths.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2017-05-15 19:18 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I have ready prototype. I want to show it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> It is always easier to discuss on example.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 2017-05-15 19:02 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I think it is a bit premature to provide a PR
> > > > without
> > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> consensus on the dev list. Please allow some
> > time
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> respond.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> D.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Vyacheslav
> > > Daradur
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > I created the ticket:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> /browse/IGNITE-5226
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > I'll prepare a PR with described solution in
> > > > couple
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > days.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > 2017-05-15 15:05 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav
> Daradur
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Apache 2.0 is released.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Let's continue the discussion about a
> > > > compression
> > > > > > > > design.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > At the moment, I found only one solution
> > which
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > compatible
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > querying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and indexing, this is per-objects-field
> > > > > compression.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Per-fields compression means that metadata
> > (a
> > > > > > header)
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> won't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > be compressed, only serialized values of
> an
> > > > object
> > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > (in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bytes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> array
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > form) will be compressed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > This solution have some contentious
> issues:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > - small values, like primitives and short
> > > > arrays -
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > compress them;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > - there is no possible to use compression
> > with
> > > > > > > > > > java-predefined
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> types;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > We can provide an annotation,
> > > > @IgniteCompression -
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> which can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > be used by users for marking fields to
> > > compress.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Maybe someone already have ready design?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2017-04-10 11:06 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav
> > Daradur
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> Yes, I've read it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> Ok, let's discuss about public API
> design.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> I think we need to add some a configure
> > > entity
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> CacheConfiguration,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> which will contain the Compressor
> interface
> > > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > usefull
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> parameters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> Or maybe to provide a BinaryMarshaller
> > > > decorator,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> compress
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> data after marshalling.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> 2017-04-10 10:40 GMT+03:00 Alexey
> > Kuznetsov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > akuznet...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> Did you read initial discussion [1]
> about
> > > > > > > compression?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> As far as I remember we agreed to add
> only
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > "top-level"
> > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > order
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> provide a way for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> Ignite users to inject some sort of
> custom
> > > > > > > > compression.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> http://apache-ignite-developer
> > > > > s.2346864.n4.nabble
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > com/Data-c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> ompression-in-Ignite-2-0-td10099.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:19 PM,
> > daradurvs <
> > > > > > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > Hi Igniters!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > I am interested in this task.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > Provide some kind of pluggable
> > compression
> > > > SPI
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > jira/browse/IGNITE-3592>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > I developed a solution on
> > > > > > BinaryMarshaller-level,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > reviewer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> rejected
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > Let's continue discussion of task
> goals
> > > and
> > > > > > > solution
> > > > > > > > > > > design.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > As I understood that, the main goal of
> > > this
> > > > > task
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> data in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > compressed form.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > This is what I need from Ignite as its
> > > user.
> > > > > > > > > Compression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> provides
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> economy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > servers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > We can store more data on same servers
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > cost
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> increasing CPU
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > utilization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > I'm researching a possibility of
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > compression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> at the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > cache-level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > View this message in context:
> > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> > > > > > > > com/Data-compression-in-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > Ignite-2-0-tp10099p16317.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > archive
> > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> Nabble.com.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>> Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Anton Churaev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best Regards, Anton Churaev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards, Anton Churaev
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards, Anton Churaev
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> >
>
--
Best Regards, Vyacheslav
