Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Igniters, I'm glad to introduce Read Repair feature [0] provides additional consistency guarantee for Ignite. 1) Why we need it? The detailed explanation can be found at IEP-31 [1]. In short, because of bugs, it's possible to gain an inconsistent state. We need additional features to handle this case. Currently we able to check cluster using Idle_verify [2] feature, but it will not fix the data, will not even tell which entries are broken. Read Repair is a feature to understand which entries are broken and to fix them. 1) How it works? IgniteCache now able to provide special proxy [3] withReadRepair(). This proxy guarantee that data will be gained from all owners and compared. In the case of consistency violation situation, data will be recovered and a special event recorded. 3) Naming? Feature name based on Cassandra's Read Repair feature [4], which is pretty similar. 4) Limitations which can be fixed in the future? * MVCC and Near caches are not supported. * Atomic caches can be checked (false positive case is possible on this check), but can't be recovered. * Partial entry removal can't be recovered. * Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a "cache.put" based updater) and loaded by cache.load are perceived as inconsistent since they may have different versions for same keys. * Only explicit get operations are supported (getAndReplace, getAndPut, etc can be supported in future). 5) What's left? * SQL/ThinClient/etc support. * Metrics (found/repaired). * Simple per-partition recovery feature able to work in the background in addition to per-entry recovery feature. 6) Is code checked? * Pull Request #5656 [5] (feature) - has green TC. * Pull Request #6575 [6] (RunAll with the feature enabled for every get() request) - has a limited amount of failures (because of data streamer, cache.load, etc). Thoughts? [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663 [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-31+Consistency+check+and+fix [2] https://apacheignite-tools.readme.io/docs/control-script#section-verification-of-partition-checksums [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/27b6105ecc175b61e0aef59887830588dfc388ef/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/IgniteCache.java#L140 [4] https://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/operations/opsRepairNodesReadRepair.html [5] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656 [6] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6575
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Anton. I worried about this limitation: > Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a "cache.put" based updater) > and loaded by cache.load. As we discussed privately in this modes *ALL ENTRIES ON ALL OWNERS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS* Why we need this modes, in the first place? Should we consider it's removal in Ignite 3 or should we fix them? В Чт, 20/06/2019 в 14:15 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > Igniters, > I'm glad to introduce Read Repair feature [0] provides additional > consistency guarantee for Ignite. > > 1) Why we need it? > The detailed explanation can be found at IEP-31 [1]. > In short, because of bugs, it's possible to gain an inconsistent state. > We need additional features to handle this case. > > Currently we able to check cluster using Idle_verify [2] feature, but it > will not fix the data, will not even tell which entries are broken. > Read Repair is a feature to understand which entries are broken and to fix > them. > > 1) How it works? > IgniteCache now able to provide special proxy [3] withReadRepair(). > This proxy guarantee that data will be gained from all owners and compared. > In the case of consistency violation situation, data will be recovered and > a special event recorded. > > 3) Naming? > Feature name based on Cassandra's Read Repair feature [4], which is pretty > similar. > > 4) Limitations which can be fixed in the future? > * MVCC and Near caches are not supported. > * Atomic caches can be checked (false positive case is possible on this > check), but can't be recovered. > * Partial entry removal can't be recovered. > * Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a "cache.put" based > updater) and loaded by cache.load > are perceived as inconsistent since they may have different versions for > same keys. > * Only explicit get operations are supported (getAndReplace, getAndPut, > etc can be supported in future). > > 5) What's left? > * SQL/ThinClient/etc support. > * Metrics (found/repaired). > * Simple per-partition recovery feature able to work in the background in > addition to per-entry recovery feature. > > 6) Is code checked? > * Pull Request #5656 [5] (feature) - has green TC. > * Pull Request #6575 [6] (RunAll with the feature enabled for every get() > request) - has a limited amount of failures (because of data streamer, > cache.load, etc). > > Thoughts? > > [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663 > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-31+Consistency+check+and+fix > [2] > https://apacheignite-tools.readme.io/docs/control-script#section-verification-of-partition-checksums > [3] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/27b6105ecc175b61e0aef59887830588dfc388ef/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/IgniteCache.java#L140 > [4] > https://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/operations/opsRepairNodesReadRepair.html > [5] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656 > [6] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6575 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Nikolay, >> Should we consider it's removal in Ignite 3 Don't think so. My initial ReadRepair implementation uses version to detect inconsistency. Strategy can be changed later (most likely it will) or even provided ability to use own strategy. Data streamer's and cache.load's cases can be supported by simple values check as the second phase of checks. As I mentioned privately - all limitations are limitations for the initial version and can be eliminated in the future. Currently, the main goal is to merge the solution to continue the work. * After the merge, it will be possible to split work on this task (metrics, whole partitions fix, data streamers, ... etc). * Seems, I found the consistency issue checking my feature (a backup can be outdated for some time after tx finish in full_sync). Merge will provide the ability to investigate bug deeper and solve if confirmed. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:22 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Anton. > > I worried about this limitation: > > > Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a "cache.put" based > updater) and loaded by cache.load. > > As we discussed privately in this modes > > *ALL ENTRIES ON ALL OWNERS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS* > > Why we need this modes, in the first place? > Should we consider it's removal in Ignite 3 or should we fix them? > > В Чт, 20/06/2019 в 14:15 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > Igniters, > > I'm glad to introduce Read Repair feature [0] provides additional > > consistency guarantee for Ignite. > > > > 1) Why we need it? > > The detailed explanation can be found at IEP-31 [1]. > > In short, because of bugs, it's possible to gain an inconsistent state. > > We need additional features to handle this case. > > > > Currently we able to check cluster using Idle_verify [2] feature, but it > > will not fix the data, will not even tell which entries are broken. > > Read Repair is a feature to understand which entries are broken and to > fix > > them. > > > > 1) How it works? > > IgniteCache now able to provide special proxy [3] withReadRepair(). > > This proxy guarantee that data will be gained from all owners and > compared. > > In the case of consistency violation situation, data will be recovered > and > > a special event recorded. > > > > 3) Naming? > > Feature name based on Cassandra's Read Repair feature [4], which is > pretty > > similar. > > > > 4) Limitations which can be fixed in the future? > > * MVCC and Near caches are not supported. > > * Atomic caches can be checked (false positive case is possible on this > > check), but can't be recovered. > > * Partial entry removal can't be recovered. > > * Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a "cache.put" based > > updater) and loaded by cache.load > > are perceived as inconsistent since they may have different versions > for > > same keys. > > * Only explicit get operations are supported (getAndReplace, getAndPut, > > etc can be supported in future). > > > > 5) What's left? > > * SQL/ThinClient/etc support. > > * Metrics (found/repaired). > > * Simple per-partition recovery feature able to work in the background > in > > addition to per-entry recovery feature. > > > > 6) Is code checked? > > * Pull Request #5656 [5] (feature) - has green TC. > > * Pull Request #6575 [6] (RunAll with the feature enabled for every > get() > > request) - has a limited amount of failures (because of data streamer, > > cache.load, etc). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663 > > [1] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-31+Consistency+check+and+fix > > [2] > > > https://apacheignite-tools.readme.io/docs/control-script#section-verification-of-partition-checksums > > [3] > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/27b6105ecc175b61e0aef59887830588dfc388ef/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/IgniteCache.java#L140 > > [4] > > > https://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/operations/opsRepairNodesReadRepair.html > > [5] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656 > > [6] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6575 >
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Hi Anton, I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the list of constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, etc? For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on the IEP page as JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an epic/umbrella ticket in order to track all activities related to `Read Repair` feature. Thanks, S. чт, 20 июн. 2019 г. в 14:15, Anton Vinogradov : > Igniters, > I'm glad to introduce Read Repair feature [0] provides additional > consistency guarantee for Ignite. > > 1) Why we need it? > The detailed explanation can be found at IEP-31 [1]. > In short, because of bugs, it's possible to gain an inconsistent state. > We need additional features to handle this case. > > Currently we able to check cluster using Idle_verify [2] feature, but it > will not fix the data, will not even tell which entries are broken. > Read Repair is a feature to understand which entries are broken and to fix > them. > > 1) How it works? > IgniteCache now able to provide special proxy [3] withReadRepair(). > This proxy guarantee that data will be gained from all owners and compared. > In the case of consistency violation situation, data will be recovered and > a special event recorded. > > 3) Naming? > Feature name based on Cassandra's Read Repair feature [4], which is pretty > similar. > > 4) Limitations which can be fixed in the future? > * MVCC and Near caches are not supported. > * Atomic caches can be checked (false positive case is possible on this > check), but can't be recovered. > * Partial entry removal can't be recovered. > * Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a "cache.put" based > updater) and loaded by cache.load > are perceived as inconsistent since they may have different versions for > same keys. > * Only explicit get operations are supported (getAndReplace, getAndPut, > etc can be supported in future). > > 5) What's left? > * SQL/ThinClient/etc support. > * Metrics (found/repaired). > * Simple per-partition recovery feature able to work in the background in > addition to per-entry recovery feature. > > 6) Is code checked? > * Pull Request #5656 [5] (feature) - has green TC. > * Pull Request #6575 [6] (RunAll with the feature enabled for every get() > request) - has a limited amount of failures (because of data streamer, > cache.load, etc). > > Thoughts? > > [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663 > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-31+Consistency+check+and+fix > [2] > > https://apacheignite-tools.readme.io/docs/control-script#section-verification-of-partition-checksums > [3] > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/27b6105ecc175b61e0aef59887830588dfc388ef/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/IgniteCache.java#L140 > [4] > > https://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/operations/opsRepairNodesReadRepair.html > [5] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656 > [6] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6575 >
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Slava, >> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. Great news! >> In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the list of >> constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, etc? Not sure we should keep this at IEP until list (#4 from original letter) is not confirmed. Currently, I'm checking RunAll with RR enabled to almost each get request. "Almost" means: readRepair = !ctx.readThrough() && ctx.config().getBackups() > 0 && !ctx.isNear() && !ctx.mvccEnabled() For now I have 60 failed tests and amount decreasing. >> For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on the IEP page as >> JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an epic/umbrella ticket >> in order to track all activities related to `Read Repair` feature. Let's do this at merge day to be sure useless issues will not be created. On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:01 PM Вячеслав Коптилин wrote: > Hi Anton, > > I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. > > In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the list of > constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, etc? > For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on the IEP page as > JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an epic/umbrella ticket > in order to track all activities related to `Read Repair` feature. > > Thanks, > S. > > чт, 20 июн. 2019 г. в 14:15, Anton Vinogradov : > > > Igniters, > > I'm glad to introduce Read Repair feature [0] provides additional > > consistency guarantee for Ignite. > > > > 1) Why we need it? > > The detailed explanation can be found at IEP-31 [1]. > > In short, because of bugs, it's possible to gain an inconsistent state. > > We need additional features to handle this case. > > > > Currently we able to check cluster using Idle_verify [2] feature, but it > > will not fix the data, will not even tell which entries are broken. > > Read Repair is a feature to understand which entries are broken and to > fix > > them. > > > > 1) How it works? > > IgniteCache now able to provide special proxy [3] withReadRepair(). > > This proxy guarantee that data will be gained from all owners and > compared. > > In the case of consistency violation situation, data will be recovered > and > > a special event recorded. > > > > 3) Naming? > > Feature name based on Cassandra's Read Repair feature [4], which is > pretty > > similar. > > > > 4) Limitations which can be fixed in the future? > > * MVCC and Near caches are not supported. > > * Atomic caches can be checked (false positive case is possible on this > > check), but can't be recovered. > > * Partial entry removal can't be recovered. > > * Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a "cache.put" based > > updater) and loaded by cache.load > > are perceived as inconsistent since they may have different versions > for > > same keys. > > * Only explicit get operations are supported (getAndReplace, getAndPut, > > etc can be supported in future). > > > > 5) What's left? > > * SQL/ThinClient/etc support. > > * Metrics (found/repaired). > > * Simple per-partition recovery feature able to work in the background > in > > addition to per-entry recovery feature. > > > > 6) Is code checked? > > * Pull Request #5656 [5] (feature) - has green TC. > > * Pull Request #6575 [6] (RunAll with the feature enabled for every > get() > > request) - has a limited amount of failures (because of data streamer, > > cache.load, etc). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663 > > [1] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-31+Consistency+check+and+fix > > [2] > > > > > https://apacheignite-tools.readme.io/docs/control-script#section-verification-of-partition-checksums > > [3] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/27b6105ecc175b61e0aef59887830588dfc388ef/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/IgniteCache.java#L140 > > [4] > > > > > https://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/operations/opsRepairNodesReadRepair.html > > [5] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656 > > [6] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6575 > > >
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Folks, Just a minor update. RunAll [1] with enabled ReadRepair proxy is almost green now (~10 tests left, started with 6k :)). During the analisys, I've found some tests with - unexpected repairs at tx caches - inconsistent state after the test finished (different entries across the topology) For example, - testInvokeAllAppliedOnceOnBinaryTypeRegistration generates obsolete versions on backups in case of retry, fixed [2] - initial cache load generates not equal versions on backups, fixed [3] - testAccountTxNodeRestart causes unexpected repairs (entries have different versions), to be investigated. What's next? 1) Going to merge the solution once "RunAll with ReadRepair enabled" becomes fully green. 2) Going to add special check after each test which will ensure caches content after the test is consistent. 2.1) The Same check can (should?) be injected to awaitPartitionMapExchange() and similar methods. 3) Update Jepsen tests with RR checks. 4) Introduce per partition RR. So, the final goal is to be sure that Ignite produces only consistent data and to have a feature to solve consistency in case we gain inconsistent state somehow. Limitations? Currently, RR has some limitations, but they are not related to real production cases. In case someone interested to support, for example, MVCC or near caches, please, feel free to contribute. [1] https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache&suiteId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll&branchForTc=pull/6575/head&action=Latest [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/6f6ec4434095e692af209c61833a350f3013408c [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/255e552b474839e470c66a77e74e3c807bc76f13 On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:41 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Slava, > > >> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. > Great news! > > >> In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the list of > >> constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, etc? > Not sure we should keep this at IEP until list (#4 from original letter) > is not confirmed. > > Currently, I'm checking RunAll with RR enabled to almost each get request. > "Almost" means: readRepair = !ctx.readThrough() && > ctx.config().getBackups() > 0 && !ctx.isNear() && !ctx.mvccEnabled() > For now I have 60 failed tests and amount decreasing. > > >> For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on the IEP page > as > >> JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an epic/umbrella > ticket > >> in order to track all activities related to `Read Repair` feature. > Let's do this at merge day to be sure useless issues will not be created. > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:01 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Anton, >> >> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. >> >> In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the list of >> constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, etc? >> For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on the IEP page as >> JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an epic/umbrella ticket >> in order to track all activities related to `Read Repair` feature. >> >> Thanks, >> S. >> >> чт, 20 июн. 2019 г. в 14:15, Anton Vinogradov : >> >> > Igniters, >> > I'm glad to introduce Read Repair feature [0] provides additional >> > consistency guarantee for Ignite. >> > >> > 1) Why we need it? >> > The detailed explanation can be found at IEP-31 [1]. >> > In short, because of bugs, it's possible to gain an inconsistent state. >> > We need additional features to handle this case. >> > >> > Currently we able to check cluster using Idle_verify [2] feature, but it >> > will not fix the data, will not even tell which entries are broken. >> > Read Repair is a feature to understand which entries are broken and to >> fix >> > them. >> > >> > 1) How it works? >> > IgniteCache now able to provide special proxy [3] withReadRepair(). >> > This proxy guarantee that data will be gained from all owners and >> compared. >> > In the case of consistency violation situation, data will be recovered >> and >> > a special event recorded. >> > >> > 3) Naming? >> > Feature name based on Cassandra's Read Repair feature [4], which is >> pretty >> > similar. >> > >> > 4) Limitations which can be fixed in the future? >> > * MVCC and Near caches are not supported. >> > * Atomic caches can be checked (false positive case is possible on >> this >> > check), but can't be recovered. >> > * Partial entry removal can't be recovered. >> > * Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a "cache.put" based >> > updater) and loaded by cache.load >> > are perceived as inconsistent since they may have different versions >> for >> > same keys. >> > * Only explicit get operations are supported (getAndReplace, >> getAndPut, >> > etc can be supported in future). >> > >> > 5) What's left? >> > * SQL/ThinClient/etc support. >> > * Metrics (found/repaired). >> > * Simple per-partition r
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Folks, Thanks to everyone for tips and reviews. Yardstick checked, no performance drop found. Additional measurement: RR get() is just up to 7% slower than regular get on real benchmarks (8 clients, 4 servers, 3 backups) Code merged to the master. "Must have" tasks created and attached to the IEP. On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:18 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Folks, > > Just a minor update. > > RunAll [1] with enabled ReadRepair proxy is almost green now (~10 tests > left, started with 6k :)). > During the analisys, I've found some tests with > - unexpected repairs at tx caches > - inconsistent state after the test finished (different entries across the > topology) > For example, > - testInvokeAllAppliedOnceOnBinaryTypeRegistration generates obsolete > versions on backups in case of retry, fixed [2] > - initial cache load generates not equal versions on backups, fixed [3] > - testAccountTxNodeRestart causes unexpected repairs (entries have > different versions), to be investigated. > > What's next? > > 1) Going to merge the solution once "RunAll with ReadRepair enabled" > becomes fully green. > 2) Going to add special check after each test which will ensure caches > content after the test is consistent. > 2.1) The Same check can (should?) be injected to > awaitPartitionMapExchange() and similar methods. > 3) Update Jepsen tests with RR checks. > 4) Introduce per partition RR. > > So, the final goal is to be sure that Ignite produces only consistent data > and to have a feature to solve consistency in case we gain inconsistent > state somehow. > > Limitations? > > Currently, RR has some limitations, but they are not related to real > production cases. > In case someone interested to support, for example, MVCC or near caches, > please, feel free to contribute. > > [1] > https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache&suiteId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll&branchForTc=pull/6575/head&action=Latest > [2] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/6f6ec4434095e692af209c61833a350f3013408c > [3] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/255e552b474839e470c66a77e74e3c807bc76f13 > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:41 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > >> Slava, >> >> >> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. >> Great news! >> >> >> In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the list of >> >> constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, etc? >> Not sure we should keep this at IEP until list (#4 from original letter) >> is not confirmed. >> >> Currently, I'm checking RunAll with RR enabled to almost each get request. >> "Almost" means: readRepair = !ctx.readThrough() && >> ctx.config().getBackups() > 0 && !ctx.isNear() && !ctx.mvccEnabled() >> For now I have 60 failed tests and amount decreasing. >> >> >> For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on the IEP >> page as >> >> JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an epic/umbrella >> ticket >> >> in order to track all activities related to `Read Repair` feature. >> Let's do this at merge day to be sure useless issues will not be created. >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:01 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < >> slava.kopti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Anton, >>> >>> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. >>> >>> In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the list of >>> constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, etc? >>> For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on the IEP page >>> as >>> JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an epic/umbrella ticket >>> in order to track all activities related to `Read Repair` feature. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> S. >>> >>> чт, 20 июн. 2019 г. в 14:15, Anton Vinogradov : >>> >>> > Igniters, >>> > I'm glad to introduce Read Repair feature [0] provides additional >>> > consistency guarantee for Ignite. >>> > >>> > 1) Why we need it? >>> > The detailed explanation can be found at IEP-31 [1]. >>> > In short, because of bugs, it's possible to gain an inconsistent state. >>> > We need additional features to handle this case. >>> > >>> > Currently we able to check cluster using Idle_verify [2] feature, but >>> it >>> > will not fix the data, will not even tell which entries are broken. >>> > Read Repair is a feature to understand which entries are broken and to >>> fix >>> > them. >>> > >>> > 1) How it works? >>> > IgniteCache now able to provide special proxy [3] withReadRepair(). >>> > This proxy guarantee that data will be gained from all owners and >>> compared. >>> > In the case of consistency violation situation, data will be recovered >>> and >>> > a special event recorded. >>> > >>> > 3) Naming? >>> > Feature name based on Cassandra's Read Repair feature [4], which is >>> pretty >>> > similar. >>> > >>> > 4) Limitations which can be fixed in the future? >>> > * MVCC and Near caches are not supported. >>> > * Atomic caches can be checked (false positive case is possible on >>> this >>> > check), but can't be
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Hi Anton, Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good news :) Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole functionality in any of these topics: - http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html - http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me sad :( especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves changing public API (and that is the case, I think). Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please take a look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over scenarios? I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets that should cover existing limitations/improvements. I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: - MVCC support - Near caches - Additional metrics (number of violations, number of repaired entries etc) - Ignite C++ (It looks like, .Net is already aware of that feature) - Thin clients support - Perhaps, it would be useful to support different strategies to resolve inconsistencies What do you think? Thanks, S. ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 10:16, Anton Vinogradov : > Folks, > > Thanks to everyone for tips and reviews. > Yardstick checked, no performance drop found. > Additional measurement: RR get() is just up to 7% slower than regular get > on real benchmarks (8 clients, 4 servers, 3 backups) > Code merged to the master. > "Must have" tasks created and attached to the IEP. > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:18 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > Just a minor update. > > > > RunAll [1] with enabled ReadRepair proxy is almost green now (~10 tests > > left, started with 6k :)). > > During the analisys, I've found some tests with > > - unexpected repairs at tx caches > > - inconsistent state after the test finished (different entries across > the > > topology) > > For example, > > - testInvokeAllAppliedOnceOnBinaryTypeRegistration generates obsolete > > versions on backups in case of retry, fixed [2] > > - initial cache load generates not equal versions on backups, fixed [3] > > - testAccountTxNodeRestart causes unexpected repairs (entries have > > different versions), to be investigated. > > > > What's next? > > > > 1) Going to merge the solution once "RunAll with ReadRepair enabled" > > becomes fully green. > > 2) Going to add special check after each test which will ensure caches > > content after the test is consistent. > > 2.1) The Same check can (should?) be injected to > > awaitPartitionMapExchange() and similar methods. > > 3) Update Jepsen tests with RR checks. > > 4) Introduce per partition RR. > > > > So, the final goal is to be sure that Ignite produces only consistent > data > > and to have a feature to solve consistency in case we gain inconsistent > > state somehow. > > > > Limitations? > > > > Currently, RR has some limitations, but they are not related to real > > production cases. > > In case someone interested to support, for example, MVCC or near caches, > > please, feel free to contribute. > > > > [1] > > > https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache&suiteId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll&branchForTc=pull/6575/head&action=Latest > > [2] > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/6f6ec4434095e692af209c61833a350f3013408c > > [3] > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/255e552b474839e470c66a77e74e3c807bc76f13 > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:41 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > >> Slava, > >> > >> >> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. > >> Great news! > >> > >> >> In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the list of > >> >> constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, etc? > >> Not sure we should keep this at IEP until list (#4 from original letter) > >> is not confirmed. > >> > >> Currently, I'm checking RunAll with RR enabled to almost each get > request. > >> "Almost" means: readRepair = !ctx.readThrough() && > >> ctx.config().getBackups() > 0 && !ctx.isNear() && !ctx.mvccEnabled() > >> For now I have 60 failed tests and amount decreasing. > >> > >> >> For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on the IEP > >> page as > >&g
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery tool/ control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal. If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread. Thanks, S. ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин : > Hi Anton, > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good news :) > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole functionality in > any of these topics: > - > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > - > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html > Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me sad :( > especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves changing public > API (and that is the case, I think). > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please take a > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over scenarios? > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets that > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > - MVCC support > - Near caches > - Additional metrics (number of violations, number of repaired entries > etc) > - Ignite C++ (It looks like, .Net is already aware of that feature) > - Thin clients support > - Perhaps, it would be useful to support different strategies to resolve > inconsistencies > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > S. > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 10:16, Anton Vinogradov : > >> Folks, >> >> Thanks to everyone for tips and reviews. >> Yardstick checked, no performance drop found. >> Additional measurement: RR get() is just up to 7% slower than regular get >> on real benchmarks (8 clients, 4 servers, 3 backups) >> Code merged to the master. >> "Must have" tasks created and attached to the IEP. >> >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:18 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: >> >> > Folks, >> > >> > Just a minor update. >> > >> > RunAll [1] with enabled ReadRepair proxy is almost green now (~10 tests >> > left, started with 6k :)). >> > During the analisys, I've found some tests with >> > - unexpected repairs at tx caches >> > - inconsistent state after the test finished (different entries across >> the >> > topology) >> > For example, >> > - testInvokeAllAppliedOnceOnBinaryTypeRegistration generates obsolete >> > versions on backups in case of retry, fixed [2] >> > - initial cache load generates not equal versions on backups, fixed [3] >> > - testAccountTxNodeRestart causes unexpected repairs (entries have >> > different versions), to be investigated. >> > >> > What's next? >> > >> > 1) Going to merge the solution once "RunAll with ReadRepair enabled" >> > becomes fully green. >> > 2) Going to add special check after each test which will ensure caches >> > content after the test is consistent. >> > 2.1) The Same check can (should?) be injected to >> > awaitPartitionMapExchange() and similar methods. >> > 3) Update Jepsen tests with RR checks. >> > 4) Introduce per partition RR. >> > >> > So, the final goal is to be sure that Ignite produces only consistent >> data >> > and to have a feature to solve consistency in case we gain inconsistent >> > state somehow. >> > >> > Limitations? >> > >> > Currently, RR has some limitations, but they are not related to real >> > production cases. >> > In case someone interested to support, for example, MVCC or near caches, >> > please, feel free to contribute. >> > >> > [1] >> > >> https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache&suiteId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll&branchForTc=pull/6575/head&action=Latest >> > [2] >> > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/6f6ec4434095e692af209c61833a350f3013408c >> > [3] >> > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/255e552b474839e470c66a77e74e3c807bc76f13 >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:41 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: >> > >> >> Slava, >> >> >> >> >> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. >> >> Great news! >> >> >> >> >> In any way, could you please update the IEP page wi
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Slava, Thanks for your review first! >> Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please take a >> look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my solution is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a vision of how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. >> By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over scenarios? The best check is to use RR at real code. For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent modifications and restarts [1]. >> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets that >> should cover existing limitations/improvements. >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: Mostly agree with you, but - MVCC is not production ready, - not sure near support really required, - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my wish to cover AI with consistency check, - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they definitely are not showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and it's almost impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to support them all. I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide help if necessary! >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery too Do you mean per partition check and recovery? That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for such tool. In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will definitely help. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин wrote: > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery tool/ > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal. > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread. > > Thanks, > S. > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин : > > > Hi Anton, > > > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good news :) > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole functionality in > > any of these topics: > > - > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > > - > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html > > Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me sad :( > > especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves changing > public > > API (and that is the case, I think). > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please take > a > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over scenarios? > > > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets that > > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > - MVCC support > > - Near caches > > - Additional metrics (number of violations, number of repaired entries > > etc) > > - Ignite C++ (It looks like, .Net is already aware of that feature) > > - Thin clients support > > - Perhaps, it would be useful to support different strategies to resolve > > inconsistencies > > > > What do you think? > > > > Thanks, > > S. > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 10:16, Anton Vinogradov : > > > >> Folks, > >> > >> Thanks to everyone for tips and reviews. > >> Yardstick checked, no performance drop found. > >> Additional measurement: RR get() is just up to 7% slower than regular > get > >> on real benchmarks (8 clients, 4 servers, 3 backups) > >> Code merged to the master. > >> "Must have" tasks created and attached to the IEP. > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:18 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > >> > >> > Folks, > >> > > >> > Just a minor update. > >> > > >> > RunAll [1] with enabled ReadRepair proxy is almost green now (~10 > tests > >> > left, started with 6k :)). > >> > During the analisys, I've found some tests with > >> > - unexpected repairs at tx caches > >> > - inconsistent state after the test finished (differen
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Anton, > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my wish to > cover AI with consistency check, Can you clarify, do you have plans to add metrics of RR events? I think it should be count of incosistency events per cache(maybe per partition). В Чт, 11/07/2019 в 09:53 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > Slava, > > Thanks for your review first! > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please take > > a > > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my solution > is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a vision of > how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over scenarios? > > The best check is to use RR at real code. > For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent modifications > and restarts [1]. > > > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets that > > > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > Mostly agree with you, but > - MVCC is not production ready, > - not sure near support really required, > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my wish to > cover AI with consistency check, > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they definitely are not > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and it's almost > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to support them all. > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide help if > necessary! > > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery too > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for such > tool. > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will definitely > help. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин > wrote: > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery tool/ > > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal. > > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread. > > > > Thanks, > > S. > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин : > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good news :) > > > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole functionality in > > > any of these topics: > > > - > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > > > - > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html > > > Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me sad :( > > > especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves changing > > > > public > > > API (and that is the case, I think). > > > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please take > > > > a > > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over scenarios? > > > > > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets that > > > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > - MVCC support > > > - Near caches > > > - Additional metrics (number of violations, number of repaired entries > > > etc) > > > - Ignite C++ (It looks like, .Net is already aware of that feature) > > > - Thin clients support > > > - Perhaps, it would be useful to support different strategies to resolve > > > inconsistencies > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > S. > > > > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 10:16, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > Folks, > > >
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Nikolay, Initial idea is to count fixes per cache. In other words, event recording should cause metric increment. Could you help me with RR metrics implementation as a part of your metrics journey? On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Anton, > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my wish > to cover AI with consistency check, > > Can you clarify, do you have plans to add metrics of RR events? > > I think it should be count of incosistency events per cache(maybe per > partition). > > > В Чт, 11/07/2019 в 09:53 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > Slava, > > > > Thanks for your review first! > > > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please > take > > > > a > > > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my solution > > is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a vision > of > > how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > scenarios? > > > > The best check is to use RR at real code. > > For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent > modifications > > and restarts [1]. > > > > > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets > that > > > > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > - not sure near support really required, > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my wish > to > > cover AI with consistency check, > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. > > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they definitely are > not > > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and it's > almost > > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to support them > all. > > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide help if > > necessary! > > > > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery too > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for such > > tool. > > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will definitely > > help. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery tool/ > > > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal. > > > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > S. > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин < > slava.kopti...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good news > :) > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole > functionality in > > > > any of these topics: > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html > > > > Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me sad :( > > > > especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves changing > > > > > > public > > > > API (and that is the case, I think). > > > > > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please > take > > > > > > a > > > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > scenarios? > > > > > > > > I just checked, the IEP
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
Hello Anton,
> I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a vision
of how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly.
Could you please take a look at PR:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6689
> Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my solution
is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?),
In my humble opinion, I would consider this feature as experimental one (It
does not seem production-ready).
Let me clarify this with the following simple example:
try {
atomicCache.withReadRepair().getAll(keys);
}
catch (CacheException e) {
// What should be done here from the end-user point of view?
}
1. Should I consider that my cluster is broken? There is no answer! The
false-positive result is possible.
2. What should be done here in order to check/resolve the issue? Perhaps, I
should restart a node (which one?), restart the whole cluster, put a new
value...
3. IgniteConsistencyViolationException is absolutely useless. It does not
provide any information about the issue and possible way to fix it.
It seems that transactional caches are covered much better.
> Mostly agree with you, but
> - MVCC is not production ready,
> - not sure near support really required,
> - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my wish
to
> cover AI with consistency check,
> - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support?
Well, near caches are widely used and fully transactional, so I think it
makes sense to support the feature for near caches too.
.Net is already aware of 'ReadRepair'. It seems to me, that it can be
easily supported for C++. I don't see a reason why it should not be done :)
> Do you mean per partition check and recovery? That's a good idea, but I
found it's not easy to imagine API to for such tool.
Yep, perhaps it can be done on the idle cluster via `idle-verify` command
with additional flag. Agreed, that this approach is not the best one
definitely.
Thanks,
S.
чт, 11 июл. 2019 г. в 09:53, Anton Vinogradov :
> Slava,
>
> Thanks for your review first!
>
> >> Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please take
> a
> >> look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :(
> Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my solution
> is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?),
> I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a vision of
> how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly.
>
> >> By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over scenarios?
> The best check is to use RR at real code.
> For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent modifications
> and restarts [1].
>
> >> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets that
> >> should cover existing limitations/improvements.
> >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least:
> Mostly agree with you, but
> - MVCC is not production ready,
> - not sure near support really required,
> - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my wish to
> cover AI with consistency check,
> - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support?
> Also, we should not produce stillborn issue.
> All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they definitely are not
> showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested.
> Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and it's almost
> impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to support them
> all.
> I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide help if
> necessary!
>
> >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery too
> Do you mean per partition check and recovery?
> That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for such
> tool.
> In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will definitely
> help.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин <
> slava.kopti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery tool/
> > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal.
> > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > S.
> >
> > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин >:
> >
> > > Hi Anton,
> > >
> > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good news :)
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole functionality
> in
> > > any of these
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
> Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for such > > tool. > > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will definitely > > help. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery tool/ > > > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal. > > > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > S. > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин < > slava.kopti...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good news > :) > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole > functionality > > in > > > > any of these topics: > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html > > > > Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me sad :( > > > > especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves changing > > > public > > > > API (and that is the case, I think). > > > > > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please > > take > > > a > > > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > scenarios? > > > > > > > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets > that > > > > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > - MVCC support > > > > - Near caches > > > > - Additional metrics (number of violations, number of repaired > entries > > > > etc) > > > > - Ignite C++ (It looks like, .Net is already aware of that feature) > > > > - Thin clients support > > > > - Perhaps, it would be useful to support different strategies to > > resolve > > > > inconsistencies > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 10:16, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > >> Folks, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks to everyone for tips and reviews. > > > >> Yardstick checked, no performance drop found. > > > >> Additional measurement: RR get() is just up to 7% slower than > regular > > > get > > > >> on real benchmarks (8 clients, 4 servers, 3 backups) > > > >> Code merged to the master. > > > >> "Must have" tasks created and attached to the IEP. > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:18 PM Anton Vinogradov > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Folks, > > > >> > > > > >> > Just a minor update. > > > >> > > > > >> > RunAll [1] with enabled ReadRepair proxy is almost green now (~10 > > > tests > > > >> > left, started with 6k :)). > > > >> > During the analisys, I've found some tests with > > > >> > - unexpected repairs at tx caches > > > >> > - inconsistent state after the test finished (different entries > > across > > > >> the > > > >> > topology) > > > >> > For example, > > > >> > - testInvokeAllAppliedOnceOnBinaryTypeRegistration generates > > obsolete > > > >> > versions on backups in case of retry, fixed [2] > > > >> > - initial cache load generates not equal versions on backups, > fixed > > > [3] > > > >> > - testAccountTxNodeRestart causes unexpected repairs (entries have > > > >> > different versions), to be investigated. > > > >> &
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
, we should not produce stillborn issue. > > > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they definitely are > > not > > > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > > > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and it's > > almost > > > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to support them > > > all. > > > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide help if > > > necessary! > > > > > > >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery too > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for > such > > > tool. > > > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will definitely > > > help. > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery tool/ > > > > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal. > > > > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > S. > > > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин < > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good > news > > :) > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole > > functionality > > > in > > > > > any of these topics: > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html > > > > > Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me sad > :( > > > > > especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves > changing > > > > public > > > > > API (and that is the case, I think). > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. Please > > > take > > > > a > > > > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > > scenarios? > > > > > > > > > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets > > that > > > > > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > - MVCC support > > > > > - Near caches > > > > > - Additional metrics (number of violations, number of repaired > > entries > > > > > etc) > > > > > - Ignite C++ (It looks like, .Net is already aware of that > feature) > > > > > - Thin clients support > > > > > - Perhaps, it would be useful to support different strategies to > > > resolve > > > > > inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 10:16, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > >> Folks, > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks to everyone for tips and reviews. > > > > >> Yardstick checked, no performance drop found. > > > > >> Additional measurement: RR get() is just up to 7% slower than > > regular > > > > get > > > > >> on real benchmarks (8 clients, 4 servers, 3 backups) > > > > >> Code merged to the master. > > > > >> "Must have" tasks created and attached to the IEP. > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:18 PM Anton Vinogradov > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > F
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
>> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets > > that > > > > >> should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my > > wish > > > to > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. > > > > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they definitely > are > > > not > > > > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > > > > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and it's > > > almost > > > > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to support > them > > > > all. > > > > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide help > if > > > > necessary! > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery too > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for > > such > > > > tool. > > > > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will > definitely > > > > help. > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery tool/ > > > > > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal. > > > > > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good > > news > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole > > > functionality > > > > in > > > > > > any of these topics: > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html > > > > > > Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me sad > > :( > > > > > > especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves > > changing > > > > > public > > > > > > API (and that is the case, I think). > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. > Please > > > > take > > > > > a > > > > > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > > > scenarios? > > > > > > > > > > > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira tickets > > > that > > > > > > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > > - MVCC support > > > > > > - Near caches > > > > > > - Additional metrics (number of violations, number of repaired > > > entries > > > > > > etc) > > > > > > - Ignite C++ (It looks like, .Net is already aware of that > > feature) > > > > > > - Thin clients support > > > > > > - Perhaps, it would be useful to support dif
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
gt; > > > 2. What should be done here in order to check/resolve the issue? > > > Perhaps, I > > > > should restart a node (which one?), restart the whole cluster, put a > > new > > > > value... > > > > 3. IgniteConsistencyViolationException is absolutely useless. It does > > not > > > > provide any information about the issue and possible way to fix it. > > > > > > > > It seems that transactional caches are covered much better. > > > > > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my > > > wish > > > > to > > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > Well, near caches are widely used and fully transactional, so I think > > it > > > > makes sense to support the feature for near caches too. > > > > .Net is already aware of 'ReadRepair'. It seems to me, that it can be > > > > easily supported for C++. I don't see a reason why it should not be > > done > > > :) > > > > > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? That's a good idea, > > but I > > > > found it's not easy to imagine API to for such tool. > > > > Yep, perhaps it can be done on the idle cluster via `idle-verify` > > command > > > > with additional flag. Agreed, that this approach is not the best one > > > > definitely. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > S. > > > > > > > > чт, 11 июл. 2019 г. в 09:53, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > Slava, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your review first! > > > > > > > > > > >> Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. > > Please > > > > take > > > > > a > > > > > >> look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > > Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my > > > solution > > > > > is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > > > > > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a > > > vision > > > > of > > > > > how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > > > > > > > >> By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > > > scenarios? > > > > > The best check is to use RR at real code. > > > > > For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent > > > > modifications > > > > > and restarts [1]. > > > > > > > > > > >> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira > tickets > > > that > > > > > >> should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my > > > wish > > > > to > > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > > Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. > > > > > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they definitely > > are > > > > not > > > > > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > > > > > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and > it's > > > > almost > > > > > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to support > > them > > > > > all. > > > > > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide > help > > if > > > > > necessary! > > > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery too > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > > > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for >
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
u ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > > > > > > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a > > > > vision > > > > > of > > > > > > how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > > > > scenarios? > > > > > > The best check is to use RR at real code. > > > > > > For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent > > > > > modifications > > > > > > and restarts [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira > > tickets > > > > that > > > > > > >> should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > > >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for > my > > > > wish > > > > > to > > > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > > > Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. > > > > > > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they > definitely > > > are > > > > > not > > > > > > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > > > > > > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and > > it's > > > > > almost > > > > > > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to > support > > > them > > > > > > all. > > > > > > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide > > help > > > if > > > > > > necessary! > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery > too > > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > > > > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to > for > > > > such > > > > > > tool. > > > > > > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will > > > definitely > > > > > > help. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > > > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery > > tool/ > > > > > > > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same > goal. > > > > > > > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is > good > > > > news > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole > > > > > functionality > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > any of these topics: > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
; > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? That's a good idea, > > > > but I > > > > > > found it's not easy to imagine API to for such tool. > > > > > > Yep, perhaps it can be done on the idle cluster via `idle-verify` > > > > command > > > > > > with additional flag. Agreed, that this approach is not the best > > one > > > > > > definitely. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 11 июл. 2019 г. в 09:53, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Slava, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your review first! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. > > > > Please > > > > > > take > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > >> look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > > > > Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my > > > > > solution > > > > > > > is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > > > > > > > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a > > > > > vision > > > > > > of > > > > > > > how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > > > > > scenarios? > > > > > > > The best check is to use RR at real code. > > > > > > > For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent > > > > > > modifications > > > > > > > and restarts [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira > > > tickets > > > > > that > > > > > > > >> should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > > > >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for > > my > > > > > wish > > > > > > to > > > > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > > > > Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. > > > > > > > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they > > definitely > > > > are > > > > > > not > > > > > > > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > > > > > > > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and > > > it's > > > > > > almost > > > > > > > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to > > support > > > > them > > > > > > > all. > > > > > > > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide > > > help > > > > if > > > > > > > necessary! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery > > too > > > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > > > > > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to > > for > > > > > such > > > > > > > tool. > > > > > > > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will > > > > definitely > > > > > > > help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > > > > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > &g
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
ositive result is possible. > > > > > > > 2. What should be done here in order to check/resolve the > issue? > > > > > > Perhaps, I > > > > > > > should restart a node (which one?), restart the whole cluster, > put > > > a > > > > > new > > > > > > > value... > > > > > > > 3. IgniteConsistencyViolationException is absolutely useless. > It > > > does > > > > > not > > > > > > > provide any information about the issue and possible way to > fix it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that transactional caches are covered much better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough > for > > > my > > > > > > wish > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > > > > Well, near caches are widely used and fully transactional, so I > > > think > > > > > it > > > > > > > makes sense to support the feature for near caches too. > > > > > > > .Net is already aware of 'ReadRepair'. It seems to me, that it > can > > > be > > > > > > > easily supported for C++. I don't see a reason why it should > not be > > > > > done > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? That's a good > idea, > > > > > but I > > > > > > > found it's not easy to imagine API to for such tool. > > > > > > > Yep, perhaps it can be done on the idle cluster via > `idle-verify` > > > > > command > > > > > > > with additional flag. Agreed, that this approach is not the > best > > > one > > > > > > > definitely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 11 июл. 2019 г. в 09:53, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Slava, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your review first! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at > github. > > > > > Please > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > > > > > Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean > that my > > > > > > solution > > > > > > > > is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you > have a > > > > > > vision > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> By the way, is it required to add test related to > fail-over > > > > > > scenarios? > > > > > > > > The best check is to use RR at real code. > > > > > > > > For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent > > > > > > > modifications > > > > > > > > and restarts [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira > > > > tickets > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > > > > >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > &
Re: Read Repair (ex. Consistency Check) - review request #2
t; > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 11 июл. 2019 г. в 09:53, Anton Vinogradov : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Slava, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your review first! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at > > github. > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > >> look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > > > > > > Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean > > that my > > > > > > > solution > > > > > > > > > is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you > > have a > > > > > > > vision > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> By the way, is it required to add test related to > > fail-over > > > > > > > scenarios? > > > > > > > > > The best check is to use RR at real code. > > > > > > > > > For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent > > > > > > > > modifications > > > > > > > > > and restarts [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > >> should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > > > > > >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > > > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough > > for > > > > my > > > > > > > wish > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > > > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > > > > > > Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. > > > > > > > > > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they > > > > definitely > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > > > > > > > > > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features > > and > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > almost > > > > > > > > > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to > > > > support > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > all. > > > > > > > > > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and > > provide > > > > > help > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > necessary! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the > > recovery > > > > too > > > > > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > > > > > > > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API > > to > > > > for > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > tool. > > > > > > > > > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will > > > > > > definitely > > > > > > > > > help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM В
