Hi Andrey,

thank you for your answer!
I've observed it the past few days and it happens quite randomly.
I can't really interpret the answer, because I haven't configured a
AccessedEvictionPolicy.
Do you mean that the stored entry has the same hash-code and therefore it
doesn't get replaced?

Kind regards,
Peter



2017-03-08 14:08 GMT+01:00 Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Peter,
>
> I think the message is not relevant.
> It means, Entry had been load from Offhead earlier was evicted to Offheap
> back (as AccessedEvictionPolicy is configured) without changes. So, there
> is no need to rewrite Offheap data.
> You shouldn't bother about this.
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Peter Schmitt <peter.schmitt....@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrey,
>>
>> see https://github.com/ps4os/ignite_offheap_test/blob/master
>> /src/main/java/demo/RunIgniteTester.java#L83
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-03-03 13:35 GMT+01:00 Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> It looks like offheap entry was evicted from cache and it won't to be
>>> swapped by some reason.
>>> Would you please share cache configuration?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Peter Schmitt <
>>> peter.schmitt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Ignite-Community!
>>>>
>>>> All our Ignite caches are offheap.
>>>> Now I've found the following entry in the logs:
>>>> "Value did not change, skip write swap entry..."
>>>>
>>>> Checking the source-code I can see that it can just happen in
>>>> case hasOffHeapPointer returns true. What does that mean? We just have
>>>> "soft references" between caches. In our case cache-entries don't have
>>>> references to entries in other caches via a reference-variable pointing to
>>>> those entries. Instead we store the key (in most cases a string) of the
>>>> other cache-entry and do a lookup (once needed).
>>>>
>>>> Any hint is appreciated,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Reply via email to