Hi Guys, As I understand we will be merging some tickets to release. May I suggest also add ticket [1] to 2.9 release.
There are not a lot of changes in code but It's a critical fix for the ability to launch ignite in lamba on Azure(There are not any workaround). So if nobody minds let's merge it to 2.9. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13013 -- Best regards, Anton Kalashnikov 28.08.2020, 11:16, "Alex Plehanov" <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > Guys, > > We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and IGNITE-12568 (reverted it > locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1 > > IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot paths, to trace these > hot paths, it's clear why we have performance drop here. > > IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) - switch/case block was > refactored to an array of message suppliers. The message factory is on the > hot path, which explains why this commit has an impact on total > performance. > I've checked JIT assembly output, done some JMH microbenchmarks, and found > that old implementation of MessageFactory.create() about 30-35% faster than > the new one. The reason - approach with switch/case can effectively inline > message creation code, but with an array of suppliers relatively heavy > "invokeinterface" cannot be skipped. I've tried to rewrite the code using > an abstract class for suppliers instead of an interface (to > replace "invokeinterface" with the "invokevirtual"), but it gives back only > 10% of method performance and in this case, code looks ugly (lambdas can't > be used). Currently, I can't find any more ways to optimize the current > approach (except return to the switch/case block). Andrey Gura, as the > author of IGNITE-12568, maybe you have some ideas about optimization? > > Perhaps we should revert IGNITE-12568, but there are some metrics already > created, which can't be rewritten using old message factory implementation > (IGNITE-12756). Guys, WDYT? > > пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 01:52, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > >> Looks beautiful and easy to use, thanks, Artem! Could you please add the >> following copyright to the footer of the pages? >> >> *© 2020 The Apache Software Foundation.* >> *Apache, Apache Ignite, the Apache feather and the Apache Ignite logo are >> either registered trademarks or trademarks of The Apache Software >> Foundation. * >> *Privacy Policy* >> >> - >> Denis >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:20 AM Artem Budnikov < >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We published the draft of Ignite 2.9 documentation on the Apache Ignite >>> web-site. The docs are available via the following link: >>> >>> https://ignite.apache.org/docs/2.9.0/installation/installing-using-docker >>> >>> Alex, >>> >>> Is there an estimate for the release date? >>> >>> -Artem >>> >>> On 26.08.2020 17:47, Alex Plehanov wrote: >>> > Denis, >>> > >>> > Currently, we are running mostly IgnitePutTxImplicitBenchmark without >>> > persistence. For other benchmarks drop is lower and it's harder to find >>> > problematic commit. >>> > >>> > ср, 26 авг. 2020 г. в 17:34, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: >>> > >>> >> Alex, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for sending an update. The drop is quite big. What are the >>> types of >>> >> benchmarks you are observing the degradation for (atomic puts, >>> >> transactions, sql, etc.)? >>> >> >>> >> Let us know if any help by particular committers is required. >>> >> >>> >> - >>> >> Denis >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:26 AM Alex Plehanov < >>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hello, guys! >>> >>> >>> >>> We finally have some benchmark results. Looks like there is more than >>> one >>> >>> commit with a performance drop. Detected drops for those commits only >>> >>> slightly higher than measurement error, so it was hard to find them >>> and >>> >> we >>> >>> are not completely sure we found them all and found them right. >>> >>> >>> >>> Drops detected: >>> >>> 2-3% drop on commit 99b0e0143e0 (IGNITE-13060 Tracing: initial >>> >>> implementation) >>> >>> 2-3% drop on commit 65c30ec6947 (IGNITE-12568 MessageFactory is >>> >> refactored >>> >>> in order to detect registration of message with the same direct type) >>> >>> >>> >>> The total drop we have on our environment - 7-8% and perhaps there is >>> >>> something else here (benchmarks still in progress, I will write if we >>> >> find >>> >>> more suspected commits). >>> >>> >>> >>> Ivan Artiukhov, can you please recheck mentioned above commits on your >>> >>> environment? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> чт, 20 авг. 2020 г. в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev < >>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com >>> >>> : >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hello! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Readme.io uses blue book :) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/performance-tips >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I was thinking of something along a blue circle with `i' in it, for >>> >>>> information items. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Regards, >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Ilya Kasnacheev >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ср, 19 авг. 2020 г. в 18:29, Artem Budnikov < >>> >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com >>> >>>> : >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> Search does not seem to work. >>> >>>>> It uses mockups right now, but it should be ready when the docs are >>> >>>>> released. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> I can see that note blocks are just annotated with "Note." Can we >>> >>> have >>> >>>>> some >>> >>>>>> image there? >>> >>>>> Do you have a preference as to which image you would like to see >>> >> there? >>> >>>>> -Artem >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On 19.08.2020 17:37, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: >>> >>>>>> Hello! >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Search does not seem to work. Are we going to have a proper search >>> >>>>> results >>> >>>>>> page? It is often the case that there's none. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I can see that note blocks are just annotated with "Note." Can we >>> >>> have >>> >>>>> some >>> >>>>>> image there? Example is >>> >>>>>> http://64.227.57.229/docs/2.9.0/persistence/persistence-tuning >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Regards,
