ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Kalashnikov <kaa....@yandex.ru>
Subject Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
Date Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:32:32 GMT
Hi Guys,

As I understand we will be merging some tickets to release. May I suggest also add ticket
[1] to 2.9 release.

There are not a lot of changes in code but It's a critical fix for the ability to launch ignite
in lamba on Azure(There are not any workaround).

So if nobody minds let's merge it to 2.9.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13013

-- 
Best regards,
Anton Kalashnikov



28.08.2020, 11:16, "Alex Plehanov" <plehanov.alex@gmail.com>:
> Guys,
>
> We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and IGNITE-12568 (reverted it
> locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1
>
> IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot paths, to trace these
> hot paths, it's clear why we have performance drop here.
>
> IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) - switch/case block was
> refactored to an array of message suppliers. The message factory is on the
> hot path, which explains why this commit has an impact on total
> performance.
> I've checked JIT assembly output, done some JMH microbenchmarks, and found
> that old implementation of MessageFactory.create() about 30-35% faster than
> the new one. The reason - approach with switch/case can effectively inline
> message creation code, but with an array of suppliers relatively heavy
> "invokeinterface" cannot be skipped. I've tried to rewrite the code using
> an abstract class for suppliers instead of an interface (to
> replace "invokeinterface" with the "invokevirtual"), but it gives back only
> 10% of method performance and in this case, code looks ugly (lambdas can't
> be used). Currently, I can't find any more ways to optimize the current
> approach (except return to the switch/case block). Andrey Gura, as the
> author of IGNITE-12568, maybe you have some ideas about optimization?
>
> Perhaps we should revert IGNITE-12568, but there are some metrics already
> created, which can't be rewritten using old message factory implementation
> (IGNITE-12756). Guys, WDYT?
>
> пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 01:52, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
>
>>  Looks beautiful and easy to use, thanks, Artem! Could you please add the
>>  following copyright to the footer of the pages?
>>
>>  *© 2020 The Apache Software Foundation.*
>>  *Apache, Apache Ignite, the Apache feather and the Apache Ignite logo are
>>  either registered trademarks or trademarks of The Apache Software
>>  Foundation. *
>>  *Privacy Policy*
>>
>>  -
>>  Denis
>>
>>  On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:20 AM Artem Budnikov <
>>  a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>  We published the draft of Ignite 2.9 documentation on the Apache Ignite
>>>  web-site. The docs are available via the following link:
>>>
>>>  https://ignite.apache.org/docs/2.9.0/installation/installing-using-docker
>>>
>>>  Alex,
>>>
>>>  Is there an estimate for the release date?
>>>
>>>  -Artem
>>>
>>>  On 26.08.2020 17:47, Alex Plehanov wrote:
>>>  > Denis,
>>>  >
>>>  > Currently, we are running mostly IgnitePutTxImplicitBenchmark without
>>>  > persistence. For other benchmarks drop is lower and it's harder to find
>>>  > problematic commit.
>>>  >
>>>  > ср, 26 авг. 2020 г. в 17:34, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
>>>  >
>>>  >> Alex,
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Thanks for sending an update. The drop is quite big. What are the
>>>  types of
>>>  >> benchmarks you are observing the degradation for (atomic puts,
>>>  >> transactions, sql, etc.)?
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Let us know if any help by particular committers is required.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> -
>>>  >> Denis
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:26 AM Alex Plehanov <
>>>  plehanov.alex@gmail.com>
>>>  >> wrote:
>>>  >>
>>>  >>> Hello, guys!
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> We finally have some benchmark results. Looks like there is more
than
>>>  one
>>>  >>> commit with a performance drop. Detected drops for those commits
only
>>>  >>> slightly higher than measurement error, so it was hard to find
them
>>>  and
>>>  >> we
>>>  >>> are not completely sure we found them all and found them right.
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> Drops detected:
>>>  >>> 2-3% drop on commit 99b0e0143e0 (IGNITE-13060 Tracing: initial
>>>  >>> implementation)
>>>  >>> 2-3% drop on commit 65c30ec6947 (IGNITE-12568 MessageFactory is
>>>  >> refactored
>>>  >>> in order to detect registration of message with the same direct
type)
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> The total drop we have on our environment - 7-8% and perhaps there
is
>>>  >>> something else here (benchmarks still in progress, I will write
if we
>>>  >> find
>>>  >>> more suspected commits).
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> Ivan Artiukhov, can you please recheck mentioned above commits
on your
>>>  >>> environment?
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> чт, 20 авг. 2020 г. в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>  ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
>>>  >>> :
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>>> Hello!
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> Readme.io uses blue book :)
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/performance-tips
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> I was thinking of something along a blue circle with `i' in
it, for
>>>  >>>> information items.
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> Regards,
>>>  >>>> --
>>>  >>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>> ср, 19 авг. 2020 г. в 18:29, Artem Budnikov <
>>>  >> a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com
>>>  >>>> :
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>>>> Search does not seem to work.
>>>  >>>>> It uses mockups right now, but it should be ready when
the docs are
>>>  >>>>> released.
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> I can see that note blocks are just annotated with
"Note." Can we
>>>  >>> have
>>>  >>>>> some
>>>  >>>>>> image there?
>>>  >>>>> Do you have a preference as to which image you would like
to see
>>>  >> there?
>>>  >>>>> -Artem
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>> On 19.08.2020 17:37, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>>>  >>>>>> Hello!
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> Search does not seem to work. Are we going to have
a proper search
>>>  >>>>> results
>>>  >>>>>> page? It is often the case that there's none.
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> I can see that note blocks are just annotated with
"Note." Can we
>>>  >>> have
>>>  >>>>> some
>>>  >>>>>> image there? Example is
>>>  >>>>>> http://64.227.57.229/docs/2.9.0/persistence/persistence-tuning
>>>  >>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> Regards,

Mime
View raw message