Hey,
And is it required to have a file system APIs enabled? If not, you can
deploy Ignite in a standard configuration (cache, data grid or IMDB) and
use key-val, SQL, etc. for data access.
-
Denis
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:27 AM Chris Software
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We are using it as a standal
Hi,
It's not available yet, that's true. Hopefully, it will be added in the
next few months.
-
Denis
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:24 AM matanlevy wrote:
> Someone who can help?
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
>
Thank you very much. It is completely clear to me now.
Kind regards,
Stéphane Thibaud
2019年5月17日(金) 20:56 Igor Sapego :
> These are nanosecond fraction of the last microsecond (It can be only from
> 0 to 999).
>
> Ignite's Timestamp have a nanoseconds precision, so it can not be
> represented
Charles,
Thanks for the reproducer, I'll check it out.
Best Regards,
Igor
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 6:59 PM Charles Rene
wrote:
> Thanks Igor. I also noticed that the Linux ODBC Driver deserializes the
> Ignite UUID data type into a byte[] instead of the .Net Guid type. That is
> contrary to wh
Is there anything I can do now to patch this now before its fixed upstream,
or any idea on what is needed to patch this, I'd be willing to put in a PR
for the fix, but I have mostly come up empty handed when trying to fix this
locally.
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com
Hi,
Sorry for not replying from the start.
This is not intentional, and, I believe, should be fixed by the next
release.
Best Regards,
Igor
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:12 PM mwilliamso58
wrote:
> bump
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
>
Someone who can help?
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
bump
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
These are nanosecond fraction of the last microsecond (It can be only from
0 to 999).
Ignite's Timestamp have a nanoseconds precision, so it can not be
represented
by the datetime type only.
You can find some details here: [1]
[1] -
https://apache-ignite-binary-protocol-client.readthedocs.io/en/
Hi,
I would recommend looking at the common approaches for pods scaling like
Horizontal Pod Autoscaler:
https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/run-application/horizontal-pod-autoscale/.
Best Regards,
Roman
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
John,
Entries are queued for persisting only on primary nodes, so if it fails
before writing all updates to the underlying database, then it will result
in some entries not being written to the database at all.
This is the price for a better performance, that write behind provides.
Take a look at
Hi.
I think the issue is related to building bytes counterpart of an array
during serialization using += operation on bytes object which is
immutable. This leads to throwing away previously created bytes
instances, each of which grows at new iteration.
This aligns with what I observe when ru
12 matches
Mail list logo