Re: Handling slashes in cache names

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > > You will never ever relate smth like "fdee0456adcc" to "мои_данные". > > As a user, why do I need to understand file names in Ignite work directory? > Because it is better to have an understandable and human

Re: Handling slashes in cache names

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > > try creating a directory on all nodes > And then a new node appears with a different kind of file system.. > If a new node cannot create an existing cache, it should not be allowed to start.

Re: Ignite not friendly for Monitoring

Is there a Jira ticket for it? On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Serge Puchnin wrote: > Igniters, > > It's a right idea! > > Let's try to revitalize it and make a move on. > > As a first step, I would like to propose a list of a top-level domain. > > -- the phase 1 >

Re: IGNITE-6853: Cassandra cache store does not clean prepared statements cache when remove old cassandra session

Jason, can you please start a separate thread about using Mockito for testing Ignite? D. On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Jason Man, CLSA wrote: > Thanks. Just replied on the jira thread as well. Thanks. > > -Original Message- > From: Denis Magda

Re: Thin client: Java bindings

Hi Alexey, Thanks for a detailed email. I think your approach is correct. Are you planning to implement the full JCache API for the Java thin client? If yes, I think you are missing the invoke(...) methods. Also, would be nice to support transactions as well. D. On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:03

Fwd: Page eviction mode is ignored

Cross sending to dev@. Can anyone from committers review this patch? It is scheduled for 2.4 and there is not much time left. D. -- Forwarded message -- From: Sergey Sergeev Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:02 AM Subject: Re: Page eviction mode is ignored To:

Fwd: websession clustering and persitent store

Cross-sending this to dev@. Alexey Goncharuk, you are probably the best person to help here. The problem the user is having looks like a serious usability issue. Do you have any ideas on how to improve the current behavior? D. -- Forwarded message -- From: Ilya Kasnacheev

Re: Can Ignite native persistence used with 3rd party persistence?

Cross-sending to dev@. Alexey, This issue is marked to be fixed for 2.4 which is planned to be released in a couple of weeks. Do you think you will be able to close this issue before the release? D. On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Fwd: how to set SQL timeout for the cluster?

Forwarding to the dev list. Can anyone comment on why we do not have a default query timeout? This should be very simple to add. D. -- Forwarded message -- From: afedotov Date: Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:12 AM Subject: Re: how to set SQL timeout for

Re: Irrelevant data in discovery messages

ay be repeated many times in one message. > If there is any configurable mechanism for filtering irrelevant attributes > out, it could be a workaround. > > Denis > > ср, 10 янв. 2018 г. в 22:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > Absolutely agree. I thought we coul

Re: Apache Ignite 2.4 release

+1 Do we have a list of features for 2.4 documented anywhere? D. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > +1 > > But some stuff is not yet in master (like baseline topology), so it is too > soon to create a branch, I think. > > Pavel > > On Fri, Jan 12,

Re: Irrelevant data in discovery messages

Absolutely agree. I thought we could already filter out system and environment properties on startup via configuration. I think it was implemented by Yakov a long time ago. Yakov Zhdanov, can you please chime in? ( Denis, the information you mention is static and does not change. It would be

Re: Scala 2.10 support

me) technologies in next releases in favour of the newest ones where > there is no other proper way of utilising them both. > > > > > On 10 Jan 2018, at 18:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > How much of an effort will be to support scala a

Re: Scala 2.10 support

How much of an effort will be to support scala and spark 2.10? On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:24 AM, vveider wrote: > Hi, Igniters! > > > While working on Java 9 support adaptation, came to a problem with scala > 2.10 and corresponding modules (scala-2.10, spark-2.10 and >

Re: DiscoverySpi based on Apache ZooKeeper

Thanks Semyon! I have a naming nitpick. Can we rename Problem to Failure, e.g. CommunicationProblemResolver to CommunicationFailureResolver? D. On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Semyon Boikov wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently I'm working on implementation of DiscoverySpi based

Re: Handling slashes in cache names

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Stanislav Lukyanov wrote: > > I would surround such replacements with "_", e.g. > "myCacheName_somesymbol_". > Looks nice, will do. > > > Here I am confused. I think the cache names should be case insensitive at > > all times. I seriously

Re: ATOMIC caches consistency - IEP-12

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Dmitry, > > This will not solve the problem: > > 1. new primary election may be affinity function dependent > Yes, of course. > 2. If you want to introduce order in updating backup copies then you lose >

Re: Handling slashes in cache names

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Stanislav Lukyanov wrote: > Hi all , > > I’ve implemented an approach of encoding unsafe characters in the cache > names for persistent storage directories. You can find it at > https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite/tree/ignite-7264. >

Re: Handling slashes in cache names

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Yep, base64 is just an example. > We need some kind of urlencode, but tailored for file names, so that > names remain readable. > > To avoid uppercase/lowercase collisions on Windows, we can restrict allowed >

Re: Handling slashes in cache names

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Having different policies for persistent and non-persistent caches sounds > like a bad idea for me, because there could be troubles should user try to > switch to persistent mode. It would require code changes. > >

Re: Handling slashes in cache names

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Agree with Stan and Vladimir. > We should not impose any restrictions on cache names, some users may have > issues with that. > > Using cache names as file names is internal implementation detail. > We can use cache

Re: Remove retries from DML

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Agree. AFAIK ATOMIC cache doesn't perform retries, does it? > I think it does, in some cases. Alexey Goncharuk, can you share some wisdom here?

Re: ATOMIC caches consistency - IEP-12

Yakov, As one of the prevention mechanisms for the scenario you describe, would it be possible to send the update message to backup nodes in the order in which they would become primary nodes? For example, if backup1 node is the next in chain to become the primary node, then the current primary

Re: Remove retries from DML

Vladimir, I think non-transactional DML should have the same guarantees as we have in Atomic caches. Do you agree? If yes, we should discuss DML behavior in conjunction with Atomic cache behavior. D. On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Igniters, >

Re: Do we need ML profile in AI 2.4?

+1 On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Ignite ML contributors, > > Considering that Java 8 becomes default JDK in AI 2.4, do we need to keep > a separate “ML” profile? > > I vote to discontinue it and have all the ML examples under the general > examples

Re: IGNITE-7135 needs review

Here is the link to the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7135 For some odd reason, the ticket is in unassigned state. Alexander, shouldn't it be assigned to you? D. On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Alexandr Kuramshin wrote: > Hello community! > >

Re: Handling slashes in cache names

sense to limit cache name length to reasonable length. > Because some File systems could have limitations on path length. > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename#Length_restrictions > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > >

Re: Handling slashes in cache names

My preference would be to prohibit forward and backward slashes in cache names altogether, as they may create a false feeling of some directory structure, which does not exist. We should also prohibit spaces as well. D. On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Stanislav Lukyanov

Re: IGNITE-7107 Apache Ignite RPM packages

I agree with Andrey. The product should be identical regardless of how you download and install it. On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Hi, > > I think we should provide the same default configuration for all > binary builds. From my point of view RPM/DEB/etc

Re: Transaction classes naming

Will this renaming introduce any issues with supporting previous versions? On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > How about we explain it in javadocs and properly document on wiki? Guys, I > would do this at some point when there is no another bigger issue

Re: Suppressing "development" warning

gt;Additionally, we can also add option to dynamically enable/disable dev > only >warnings via MBean. > > [1] > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-are- > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-what-is-a-reason-to-use-them > > > Thoughts? > >

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

+1 (completely agree) On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their names: > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries < > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries> > > For

Re: Integration with Docker Hub official repositories

Thanks, Petr! Sounds like something we should have done a long time ago. On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Petr Ivanov wrote: > Hi, all! > > > I’d like to initiate a process if integrating with Docker Hub on official > level - as other Apache projects currently integrated

Re: Suppressing "development" warning

I actually like the new WARNING_DEV_ONLY category for logging. If we provide it in the default logger configuration, then users will not have to do anything extra unless they want to change it. Moreover, if it is a category, then it can be turned on and off using standard logger configuration. D.

Re: IGNITE-7107 Apache Ignite RPM packages

Thanks Petr, this is awesome. To be honest, I can hardly wait until it will be possible to install Ignite with yum or apt-get. D. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Petr Ivanov wrote: > HI, all! > > > Within the task IGNITE-7107 I’ve prepare pull request #3171 [1] with: > -

Re: Time and scope for Apache Ignite 2.4

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on WAL optimizations that improve performance > significantly [1]. I believe it's important task and should be > included in Apache Ignite 2.4 release. > > [1]

Re: Replicated with CacheStore and Read-Through works like Partitioned with no backups.

It sounds like a bug, get() from backup should update the local map. Andrey, please feel free to file a ticket. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Andrey Mashenkov < andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Igniters, > > Ignite Replicated cache with CacheStore and Read-through=true and >

Re: Time to drop Java 7?

+1 On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > Considering that we’re going to support Java 9 in the next release and > hitting several limitations caused by current Java 7 support (see spark > issue [2] and account difficulties of Java 8 based ML

Re: Enable/disable cache statistics in runtime

> > 2017-11-30 0:58 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > We need the ab

Re: Enable/disable cache statistics in runtime

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Alex Plehanov wrote: > Hello, Igniters! > > We need the ability to enable or disable statistics for caches in runtime. > For now, there is a cache configuration property which seems modifiable in > runtime and this, at first sight, works

Re: Rework storage format to index-organized approach

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Alexey, > > This is completely unrelated activity. > But still is a great idea :)

Re: Rework storage format to index-organized approach

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > > If we are going to rework indexes, could we also think about supporting TTL > Indexes (like in Mongo DB [1])? > Awesome idea. Is there a ticket?

Re: Ignite page with video resources and recordings

Sounds like a good idea. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > There is a plenty of recordings of Ignite meetups, webinars and conference > talks available on the Internet. Some of them introduce basic components > and capabilities, some share

Re: FOR UPDATE support in SELECT clause

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > I do not see any use case for this. Why would you want to do this? > Atomic cache supports locking to my knowledge. The use case would be identical in SQL use case - to lock a row. Why not?

Re: FOR UPDATE support in SELECT clause

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Hi Denis, > > "FOR UPDATE" is not supported at the moment. We will add it's support for > transactional case [1]. In non-transactional case it would behave in the > same way as normal SELECT. > Why only for

Re: Apache Ignite Wikipedia

This is awesome! I know that Wikipedia submissions are not easily approved, so great job on pushing this through. D. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > Finally, we got Ignite’s wiki page ready and approved: >

Re: Rework storage format to index-organized approach

Vladimir, I definitely like the overall direction. My comments are below... On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > > I propose to adopt this approach in two phases: > 1) Optionally add data to leaf pages. This should improve our ScanQuery >

Re: Right MXBean for new metrics

edundancy level - 4. If, for some reason, minimal > redundancy level reached the value of 1, then each next node left the > cluster may cause data loss or service unavailability. > > 2017-11-24 1:31 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > Alex, >

Re: Right MXBean for new metrics

ridDhtPartitionState.OWNING) > partRedundancyLevel++; > } > > if (partRedundancyLevel < minRedundancyLevel) > minRedundancyLevel = partRedundancyLevel; > } > > > 2017-11-23 4:04 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setr

Re: Right MXBean for new metrics

> > > > 2017-11-23 0:18 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Dmitriy, > > > > > > I agree. > &

Re: Reworking Ignite site's "Features" menu

Sounds like a positive step forward. I have several comments: 1. "More Features" should be all the way at the bottom 2. "What is Ignite" should go under Features 3. I would remove the words "Distributed" from the navigation menu and leave "Key-Value" and "SQL". Otherwise, you would be adding the

Re: Right MXBean for new metrics

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Alex Plehanov wrote: > Hello Dmitriy, > > I agree. > > By "minimal partition redundancy level for cache group" I mean minimal > number of partition copies among all partitions of this cache group. > For example, if we have in our cluster

Re: Right MXBean for new metrics

Hi Alex, I think the proper approach would be to have a separate MBean for cache groups. It should show average metrics across all the caches in the group and some additional metrics as well. Agree? Also, I am not sure I understand what is "partition redundancy level" and what that metric would

Re: Suggestion to improve deadlock detection

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > It doesn’t need all txes. Instead, other nodes will send info about > suspicious txes to it from time to time. > I see your point, I think it might work.

Re: Suggestion to improve deadlock detection

How does it know about all the Txs? ⁣D.​ On Nov 20, 2017, 8:53 PM, at 8:53 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: >Dima, > >What is wrong with coordinator approach? All it does is analyze small >number of TXes which wait for locks for too long. > >вт, 21 нояб.

Re: SQL warning for partitioned caches with setLocal

Sounds like a good idea. Vladimir, would be nice to hear your thoughts. D. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:45 AM, luqmanahmad wrote: > Hi there, > > Working with SQL queries with setLocal(true) with partitioned cache, it is > very easy for someone to run SQL queries without

Re: Suggestion to improve deadlock detection

Vladimir, I am not sure I like it, mainly due to some coordinator node doing some periodic checks. For the deadlock detection to work effectively, it has to be done locally on every node. This may require that every tx request will carry information about up to N previous keys it accessed, but

Re: Adding Persistent Memory Support for Ignite

Hi Mulugeta, Where can I find documentation about LLPL to understand how memory and persistence are handled there? D. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Mammo, Mulugeta wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Ignite, when persistence mode is enabled, stores data and indexes on disk.

Re: Should we enable write throttling by default?

нояб. 2017 г. в 10:47, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com >> <mailto:voze...@gridgain.com>>: >> >> AFAIK throttling may decrease peak throughput. >> >> Alex, Ivan, >> Is it correct? >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Dmitriy Se

Re: Should we enable write throttling by default?

Thanks Denis, looks very nice! Igniters, let's stop asking users to enable flags in order for the system to behave properly. All such flags should be enabled by default. D. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > I finished documenting pages

Re: collocated compute and off-heap cache

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitriy, > > There will be no performance overhead for reads, but there will be a > significant performance overhead for writes because each update must be > changed in offheap, and since the offheap will be

Re: Why isn't Apache Ignite on stackshare.io

Hi Jason, great point! Denis, what do you think? Here is a link to how you can add Ignite to the Stackshare: https://stackshare.io/stacks Jason, perhaps you can be our first customer testimonial there :) D. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jason Man, CLSA wrote: > Just

collocated compute and off-heap cache

Igniters, I am noticing that some users struggle with performance when using collocated compute and off-heap cache. The main reason is that collocated computations access data locally, directly on the server, and with off-heap cache all binary objects need to be deserialized for every access. A

Re: Ignite Enhancement Proposal #6 (Metrics)

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Dmitriy, > > It looks like a confluence bug. > Please login and push refresh button at issues list. > Works now. It is unfortunate that it does not work for the community members who do not login. Perhaps we

Re: Ignite Enhancement Proposal #6 (Metrics)

Anton, for the IEP to be complete, you should add a list of Jira tickets to the IEP page. Otherwise, it is unclear how to get started on it. Thanks, D. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Val, Denis, > > I've updated issues list, thanks for

Re: Fair affinity resurrection with baseline topology

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Alexei Scherbakov < alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > In fact, after implementing this, we will no longer need rendezvous > affinity. > > Why do we need other affinity if we already provided ideal assignment to > user ? > Because rendezvous is

Re: Ignite Enhancement Proposal #6 (Metrics)

Thanks, Anton! All makes sense. I was actually under impression that Ignite already provides some of these metrics. Can you please create relevant tickets and add them to the IEP page? Perhaps someone in the community could pick these up. This would be a very nice way to get started with the

Re: Fair affinity resurrection with baseline topology

I think it definitely makes sense to add the Fair affinity function back to Ignite. On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Igniters, > > After spending some time on baseline topology review, it came to my mind > that we can return stateful

Re: [DISUCSS] Ticket filing process

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Ok, I see. Then the question is when to do a review? > Whenever, the sooner the better. This we cannot enforce. But since the tickets will have the upcoming release version, the review will have to happen before the

Re: JMSStreamer enhancement -- needs to support multiple IgniteDataStreamers.

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Timothy Steffens wrote: > Can the JMSStreamer be configured to inspect the message prior to picking > it off of the queue? If so, then I can use multiple JMSStreamers as you > suggest. If not, then I cannot since each JMSStreamer will

Re: JMSStreamer enhancement -- needs to support multiple IgniteDataStreamers.

Tim, I am not sure why we need to change the JMS streamer. Why not just create a separate JMS streamer per cache? In my view, it is more intuitive to keep one-to-one relationship between JMS streamer and the data streamer. D. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Timothy Steffens <

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

id unnecessary > rebalancing and speeds up the partition map exchange. > > 2017-11-08 0:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > Alexey, can you explain what an offline node means, if it is not an > > endpoint? Can it become an online node? If you could

Re: [DISUCSS] Ticket filing process

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Dima, > > What is the problem you are trying to solve? I am not sure I understand. > You cannot force maintainers to do a review. And you cannot force release > manager to do this either. Because this role is only

Re: [DISUCSS] Ticket filing process

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > > However, if the release version was assigned properly, the > > release manager or component owners would have no choice but to do the > > review. > > There is actually an alternative the release managers tend to follow.

Re: [DISUCSS] Ticket filing process

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Dima, > > As I already mentioned, the whole community more or less followed this > process for years already with no success. My suggestion is to ask > component maintainers to perform regular review of relevant

Re: [DISUCSS] Ticket filing process

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Dima, > > When ticket is assigned to a version and doesn't guarantee that anyone will > look at it either. When it is time to release we usually have hundreds of > unresolved tickets on current version and it doesn't

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

wrote: > Why not? To me, the endpoint in the name suggests that this is something > intended to connect to, however, the interface just denotes a node that can > be offline, so I think it still has to be a 'Node'. > > 2017-11-06 22:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak..

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

> > For now, we must keep the old AffinityFunction interface, but we can change > it in the AI 3.0. > > --AG > > 2017-11-04 17:56 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > Alexey, what is the point of BaselineNode interface? Why not just have >

Re: Cluster auto activation design proposal

itself looks like a good place for management API. Looks like the original > decision to place it on Ignite was wrong. > > Thanks! > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5850 > > 2017-09-04 17:46 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > >

Re: Deserialization of BinaryObject's byte arrays

This makes sense to me. Sounds like a useful feature. Would be nice to hear what others in the community think? D. On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Andrey Kornev wrote: > Hello, > > We store lots of byte arrays (serialized graph-like data structures) as > fields of

Re: Let's keep Apache Ignite docs up-to-date

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > +1 for moving docs under Git provided that we find a way to update docs > outside of AI release as it is possible now with readme.io. > I am HUGE +1 for that. The whole problem is that we haven't found a way yet.

Re: [DISUCSS] Ticket filing process

n constantly. > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > Currently, most new Jira tickets do not get reviewed and often get lost > > unless some user complains about it. > > >

Re: GA Grid: Request to contribute GA library to Apache Ignite

Hi Turik, Is my understanding correct that GA Grid is a vertical component for genetic algorithms? So far Ignite has been a horizontal product without any vertical functionality. I personally would like to keep it this way (other community members should chime in here). I personally think it is

Re: Let's keep Apache Ignite docs up-to-date

lly. > > > > Ideally, API docs (javadoc) should be integrated with the rest of the > docs, > > so users can navigate to the corresponding APIs. > > This can't be achieved nicely with readme.io. > > > > > > > having docs under separate git repository >

[DISUCSS] Ticket filing process

Igniters, Currently, most new Jira tickets do not get reviewed and often get lost unless some user complains about it. In my view, the community must review all recently filed ticket and make sure that we address most critical or most useful ones. Often an issue is not critical from correctness

Re: Let's keep Apache Ignite docs up-to-date

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > I would also consider having docs under separate git repository. Separate > since we need to have an opportunity to revisit documentation for already > released versions. > This should not be a problem.

Re: Let's keep Apache Ignite docs up-to-date

e.io/>. > >>> > >>> — > >>> Denis > >>> > >>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 2:35 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Denis, > >>>> > >>&

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.3.0 Release (RC2)

Great job on release! Is there a link to the release notes? The release notes link on the website is broken: https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi D. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > The readme.io docs including the new SQL domain went to live: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite Update Checker

n and we as PMC don’t even > >>> have access to them. > >>> > >>> If you want to keep pushing this direction let’s craft a message to > >>> Greg and Daniel directly. I don’t know what else to ask for here rather > >>> than a virtual machi

Re: Ignite 2.0.0 GridUnsafe unmonitor

Denis, We should definitely print out a thorough warning if HashMap is passed into a bulk method (instead of SortedMap). However, we should make sure that we only print that warning once and not ever time the API is called. Can you please file a ticket for 2.4? D. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:05

Re: affinity key syntax

gt; more > > lookups are needed. > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > >> wrote: > >> &

Re: IgniteSet implementation: changes required

Hi Andrey, Thanks for a detailed email. I think your suggestions do make sense. Ignite cannot afford to have a distributed set that is not fail-safe. Can you please focus only on solutions that provide consistent behavior in case of topology changes and failures and document them in the ticket?

Re: Let's keep Apache Ignite docs up-to-date

Thanks Denis! Any change we can rename the page to "How to Document?". On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > Our project is broadly documented so it’s becoming harder and harder to > keep the docs consistent and updated. During several last

Re: Cache with invalid name

Vasiliy, can you please file a ticket? On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Vasiliy Sisko wrote: > On creation of cache with name “\:” received exception (For MXBean after > ‘\’ symbol allowed only ‘\’, ‘”’, ‘?’, ‘*’ and ‘n’ symbols): > > > [2017-10-27 >

Re: Query performance against table with/out backup

Andrey, thanks for pointing this out. I think this is a serious usability issue. Do I understand correctly that we currently simply ignore a change in backup count if the persistence is enabled? If yes, we should fix it ASAP. I would also add a check for other configuration properties, like the

Re: IGNITE-6692 Select query on a client with unused field throws an exception.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Nikita, > > I am afraid this is incorrect fix, since zero is valid hash for schema. We > control whether the schema is est through the flag > BinaryUtils.FLAG_HAS_SCHEMA. Please try using it instead. > Vladimir, in

Re: Set gitter aside

How about we continue to have the Gitter channel, but remove the link from the website? On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > I would consider moving decent questions to mailing lists asking to do so > in response to gitter requests and at some point stop

Re: serializable versions of java 8 functional interfaces

Thanks, Alex, this is useful. Is there a Jira ticket for it? If not, can you create one? On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Alexandre Boudnik < alexander.boud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > In order to use java 8 lambdas, we've developed serialized versions of a > few java.util.function

Re: Ability to disable WAL in runtime to speed up load

Vladimir, Several questions: 1. On which interface do you plan to add enable/disableWal()? 2. Is it possible that when enabling/disabling WAL for multiple caches, some fail and some succeed? 3. is enable/disableWal a synchronous operation? 4. What happens if a user starts

Re: affinity key syntax

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Dima, > > Yes, I saw it also. But this is not about syntax only. Spanner use this > information to store data efficiently - child entries a located near to > their parents. We can think of it as if all related tables

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >