ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
Date Mon, 31 Aug 2020 06:43:54 GMT
Artem, in ignite 2.9 a way to build C++ for linux/mac os x was changed
(autotools to cmake). As an author of this change, I want to contribute in
documentation.
As far as I understand, now it should be done through PR to specific
repository. Could you please help me with this?

пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 16:33, Anton Kalashnikov <kaa.dev@yandex.ru>:

> 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,
>


-- 
Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message