Artem, in ignite 2.9 a way to build C++ for linux/mac os x was changed
(autotools to cmake). As an author of this change, I want to
contribute in documentation.
As far as I understand, now it should be done through PR to specific
repository. Could you please help me with this?
пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 16:33, Anton Kalashnikov <kaa....@yandex.ru
<mailto:kaa....@yandex.ru>>:
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
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13013>
--
Best regards,
Anton Kalashnikov
28.08.2020, 11:16, "Alex Plehanov" <plehanov.a...@gmail.com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
>>> >>> :
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Hello!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Readme.io uses blue book :)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/performance-tips
<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
<mailto: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
<http://64.227.57.229/docs/2.9.0/persistence/persistence-tuning>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Regards,
--
Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
