ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
Date Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:53:06 GMT
Hi Ivan,

The documentation for Ignite 2.9 is kept here: 
https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs

There is a readme file with instructions. You can make a pull request to 
this branch. However, the installation instruction for Ignite C++ hasn't 
been created yet. If you want, you can create the "Setting up Ignite for 
C++" page by copying this [1] from readme.io and updating it with your 
changes.

-Artem

[1] 
https://apacheignite-cpp.readme.io/docs/getting-started-1#building-from-source

On 31.08.2020 09:43, Ivan Daschinsky wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13013>
>
>     -- 
>     Best regards,
>     Anton Kalashnikov
>
>
>
>     28.08.2020, 11:16, "Alex Plehanov" <plehanov.alex@gmail.com
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
>     >>>  >>> :
>     >>>  >>>
>     >>>  >>>> Hello!
>     >>>  >>>>
>     >>>  >>>> Readme.io uses blue book :)
>     >>>  >>>>
>     >>>  >>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/performance-tips
>     <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
>     <mailto: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
>     <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