Igniters, IGNITE-13553 fixed and cherry-picked to 2.9. We can continue with the release.
> 10 окт. 2020 г., в 00:00, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> написал(а): > > Nikolay, > > re: the minor improvements. I'm not against of including those if we can > prepare the docs before the vote starts. Presently, the docs are "frozen" > for the 2.9 release, but I can scratch some time and take part in the docs > review the next week. > > - > Denis > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:40 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hello, Igniters. >> >> I prepared a patch [1] for blocker ticket [2] - «Server node fail and >> stops in case wrong datatype put in indexed field» >> Can someone, please, help me with the review? >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8330 >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13553 >> >> ================== >> >> I propose to include several minor tickets to the scope of the 2.9 that >> increase Ignite User Experience >> >> CMD tools improvements: >> >> IGNITE-13488 - Command to print metric value >> IGNITE-13426 - Command to print system view content >> IGNITE-13422 - Parameter to explicitly enable experimental commands >> >> IGNITE-13380 - Output IgniteSystemProperties via ignite.sh >> >> New system views: >> >> IGNITE-13409 Metastorage and DistributedMetastorage viewы. >> IGNITE-13408 BinaryMetadata view. >> >>> 9 окт. 2020 г., в 04:04, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> написал(а): >>> >>> @Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>, >>> >>> If it still makes sense and not too late, you can cherry-pick the commit >>> with the new docs into the 2.9 branch: >>> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/073488ac97517bbaad9f6b94b781fc404646f191 >>> >>> Anyway, it's not crucial as long as we agreed to make an exception for >> this >>> release. The docs were already published to the website and assembled >> from >>> the master. Once the vote passes, I'll make them visible and traceable >> from >>> the website menus. >>> >>> - >>> Denis >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 7:20 AM Alexey Goncharuk < >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Saikat, >>>> >>>> The plan sounds good to me! Do you have an idea for the timeline of the >>>> module releases? Let me know if I can help in any way. >>>> >>>> Also, I was looking into the modularization IEP and noticed that OSGI >>>> module is discussed to be moved to the extensions, but there is no >>>> corresponding ticket. Should I create one? I will be happy to help with >>>> moving this module to extensions. >>>> >>>> вт, 29 сент. 2020 г. в 03:03, Saikat Maitra <saikat.mai...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> Hi Alexey, >>>>> >>>>> All the modules as planned in IEP-36 >>>>> >>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-36:+Modularization >>>>> are migrated to ignite-extensions repository. >>>>> >>>>> We can definitely plan to release ignite-extensions modules. >>>>> >>>>> I have a pending PR related to the kafka module and the PR is in review >>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8222 but its corresponding PR >> has >>>>> been merged in ignite-extensions repository. >>>>> >>>>> My thoughts / action items for the migration efforts and releases were >>>>> as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Merge the changes for https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8222 >>>>> 2. Fix the upload nightly packages task for ignite-core to help fix the >>>>> travis build failure in ignite-extensions repository. >>>>> 3. Review and update the README.md files for the ignite-extensions >>>> modules >>>>> as required. >>>>> 4. Update the docs for ignite-extensions modules in ignite-website. >>>>> 5. Release each module separately and share updates. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know if you have feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Saikat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 7:36 AM Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It seems that gitbox.apache.org is not available on CI/CD. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will try to update VCS to GitHub. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2020, at 14:07, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've tried to build release candidate using TC [1]. But: >>>>>>> 1. I can't choose a branch in this TC task (there is no such field). >>>>>>> 2. On the "default" branch I got an error: Failed to collect changes, >>>>>>> error: List remote refs failed: >>>>>>> org.apache.http.conn.ConnectTimeoutException: Connect to >>>>>>> gitbox.apache.org:443 [gitbox.apache.org/52.202.80.70] failed: >>>> connect >>>>>>> timed out, VCS root: "GitBox [asf/ignite]" {instance id=300, parent >>>>>>> internal id=74, parent id=GitBoxAsfIgnite, description: " >>>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/ignite.git#refs/heads/master"} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there some problem with this TC task? What am I doing wrong? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] : >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=Releases_ApacheIgniteMain_ReleaseBuild >>>>>>> >>>>>>> пн, 28 сент. 2020 г. в 13:15, Alexey Goncharuk < >>>>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Saikat, Nikolay, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have migrated a bunch of modules to ignite-extensions recently. >>>>>> Given >>>>>>>> that these modules will not be available in Ignite 2.9 anymore (will >>>>>>>> they?), should we also plan to release the extensions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ср, 23 сент. 2020 г. в 21:49, Alex Plehanov < >> plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>>>> : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've prepared release notes for the 2.9 release [1]. Can anyone >>>> review >>>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>> please? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8273 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> вт, 22 сент. 2020 г. в 09:39, Alex Plehanov < >>>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've filled the ticket with reproducer [1] for the discovery bug. >>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> bug >>>>>>>>>> caused by [2] ticket. We discussed with Vladimir Steshin privately >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> decided to revert this ticket. I will do it today (after TC bot >>>> visa) >>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> there are no objections. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13465 >>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13134 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> пн, 21 сент. 2020 г. в 11:08, Alex Plehanov < >>>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> During internal testing, we've found a critical bug with >>>>>>>>>>> discovery (cluster falls apart if two nodes segmented >>>> sequentially). >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>>> problem is not reproduced in 2.8.1. I think we should fix it >>>>>>>>>>> before release. Under investigation now. I'll let you know when >> we >>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>> something. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> чт, 17 сент. 2020 г. в 00:51, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what do you think? Should we proceed with a 'hacked' version >>>> of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> message factory in 2.9 and go for the runtime message generation >>>> in >>>>>>>>> later >>>>>>>>>>>> release, or keep the code clean and fix the regression in the >>>> next >>>>>>>>> releases? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey, can you take a look at my change? I think it is fairly >>>>>>>>>>>> straightforward and does not change the semantics, just skips >> the >>>>>>>>> factory >>>>>>>>>>>> closures for certain messages. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO 2.5% isn't too much especially because it isn't actual for >>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> workloads (I didn't get any significant drops during >>>> benchmarking). >>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer the runtime generation in later releases. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:41 PM Alexey Goncharuk >>>>>>>>>>>> <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, Andrey, Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what do you think? Should we proceed with a 'hacked' version >>>> of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> message factory in 2.9 and go for the runtime message generation >>>> in >>>>>>>>> later >>>>>>>>>>>> release, or keep the code clean and fix the regression in the >>>> next >>>>>>>>> releases? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey, can you take a look at my change? I think it is fairly >>>>>>>>>>>> straightforward and does not change the semantics, just skips >> the >>>>>>>>> factory >>>>>>>>>>>> closures for certain messages. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I would prefer fixing the regression given that we >>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>> introduced tracing in this release. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 11 сент. 2020 г. в 12:09, Alex Plehanov < >>>>>>>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've benchmarked by yardstick commits 130376741bf vs >>>> ed52559eb95 >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> the performance of ed52559eb95 is better for about 2.5% on >>>> average >>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>>> environment (about the same results we got benchmarking 65c30ec6 >>>> vs >>>>>>>>>>>> 0606f03d). We've made 24 runs for each commit of >>>>>>>>>>>> IgnitePutTxImplicitBenchmark (we got maximum drop for 2.9 on >> this >>>>>>>>>>>> benchmark), 200 seconds warmup, 300 seconds benchmark, 6 >>>> servers, 5 >>>>>>>>> clients >>>>>>>>>>>> 50 threads each. Yardstick results for this configuration: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commit 130376741bf: avg TPS=164096, avg latency=9173464 ns >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commit ed52559eb95: avg TPS=168283, avg latency=8945908 ns >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 11 сент. 2020 г. в 09:51, Artem Budnikov < >>>>>>>>>>>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I posted an instruction on how to publish the docs on >>>>>>>>>>>> ignite.apache.org/docs [1]. When you finish with Ignite 2.9, >> you >>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> update the docs by following the instruction. Unfortunately, I >>>>>> won't >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> able to spend any time on this project any longer. You can send >>>>>> your >>>>>>>>> pull >>>>>>>>>>>> requests and questions about the documentation to Denis Magda. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Artem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Document >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:45 PM Alexey Goncharuk < >>>>>>>>>>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried to play with message factories locally, but >>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot spot the difference between old and new >> implementation >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed benchmarks. I pushed an implementation of >>>>>>>>>>>> MessageFactoryImpl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the old switch statement to the ignite-2.9-revert-12568 >>>>>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (discussed this with Andrey Gura, the change should be >>>>>>>> compatible >>>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new metrics as we still use the register() mechanics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you check if this change makes any difference >>>>>>>> performance-wise >>>>>>>>>>>> in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment? If yes, we can go with runtime code generation >>>> in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term: register classes and generate a dynamic message >> factory >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> a switch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement once all messages are registered (not in 2.9 >>>> though, >>>>>>>>>>>> obviously). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 9 сент. 2020 г. в 14:53, Alex Plehanov < >>>>>>>>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried to optimize tracing implementation (ticket [1]), >>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> reduced the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop, but not completely removed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Rakov, Alexander Lapin, can you please review the >>>> patch? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Artiukhov, can you please benchmark the patch [2] >>>> against >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8.1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release on your environment? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this patch on our environment, it's about a 3% drop >>>> left, >>>>>>>>>>>> it's close >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to measurement error and I think such a drop is not a >>>>>>>>>>>> showstopper. Guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I found that compatibility is broken for JDBC thin >>>>>>>> driver >>>>>>>>>>>> between 2.8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 2.9 versions (ticket [3]). I think it's a blocker and >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed in 2.9. I've prepared the patch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taras Ledkov, can you please review this patch? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And one more ticket I propose to include into 2.9 [4] (NIO >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> send problem in some circumstances). I will cherry-pick it >>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13411 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8223 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13414 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13361 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 14:14, Maxim Muzafarov < >>>>>>>> mmu...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to include [1] issue to the 2.9 release. Since >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> issue is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related to the new master key change functionality which >>>>>>>>>>>> haven't been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released yet I think it will be safe to cherry-pick commit >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release branch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13390 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 12:13, Nikolay Izhikov < >>>>>>>>>>>> nizhi...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Igniters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, please, include one more Python thin client fix >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>> into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes kinda major issue - "Python client returns >> fields >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order since the 2 row when fields_count>10" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12809 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/38025ee4167f05eaa2d6a2c5c2ab70c83a462cfc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31 авг. 2020 г., в 19:23, Alexey Goncharuk < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thanks, got it. I am not sure we can optimize >>>>>>>>>>>> anything out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message factory with suppliers (at least I have no ideas >>>>>>>>>>>> right now), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most likely the only move here is to switch back to the >>>>>>>>>>>> switch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow preserving the metrics part. Probably, inlining >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the IgniteMessageFactoryImpl should do the trick. Let >>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>> explore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code a bit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. I am surprised by the impact this part makes for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message creation is indeed on the hot path, but a single >>>>>>>>>>>> virtual call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not make that much of a difference given the >>>>>>>> amount >>>>>>>>>>>> of other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happening during the message processing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 18:33, Alex Plehanov < >>>>>>>>>>>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, sorry, I wrongly interpreted our benchmark >>>>>>>>> results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were looking for a drop using bi-sect in the range >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>> e6a7f93 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit in the 2.9 branch after 2.8 branch cut) and >>>>>>>>>>>> 6592dfa5 (last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2.9 branch). And we found these two problematic >>>>>>>>>>>> commits. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps only IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) is responsible for >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8.1 and 2.9 (we have benchmarked 2.8.1 vs 2.9 with >>>>>>>>>>>> reverted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-13060 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now and performance looks the same) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ticket IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) is not >>>>>>>>>>>> related to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between 2.8.1 and 2.9, but still has some performance >>>>>>>>>>>> problem, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> win back IGNITE-13060 drop by this ticket. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need more investigation on IGNITE-13060 or we >>>>>>>> leave >>>>>>>>>>>> it as is? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should we do with IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory >>>>>>>>>>>> refactoring)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 13:25, Alexey Goncharuk < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While investigating, I found that IGNITE-12568 has an >>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version and is actually present in ignite-2.8.1 branch >>>>>>>>>>>> [1], so it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source of the drop against 2.8.1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. Looks like we need to enforce a more accurate >>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>> with fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or develop some sort of tooling to verify the fix >>>>>>>>>>>> versions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --AG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/3e492bd23851856bbd0385c6a419892d0bba2a34 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 12:42, Alexey Goncharuk < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that IGNITE-12756 (metrics improvements) is >>>>>>>>>>>> already released >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 2.8.1 while IGNITE-12568 (message factory) is >>>>>>>>>>>> only present >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Ignite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9. Let's revert both IGNITE-12568 and whichever new >>>>>>>>>>>> metrics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9 that depend on the new message factory to unblock >>>>>>>>>>>> the release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the optimizations in 2.10? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>
