ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [IEP-35] Monitoring & Profiling. Phase 2
Date Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:53:40 GMT
Hi,

>> I think akso that GridMetricManager is bad candidate for lists (system views) management.

>For me, it seems that views and metrics is extension of one another.
>If the user want to know some instant values(cache put count, cahe get latency) he use
metrics
>and one want to know list of running SQL queries one take a look into views.

Views are about system state and they answer to question "what
entities exist in the system (caches)?" or "what processes are
executing by system (tx, queries)?"
Metrics are about system behavior in some retrospective. They answers
on questions how system behaves?

Views have wider meaning than metrics.

>> Code generation for walkers is also redundant.

>If you don't want, you can not use it.
>I find it pretty usefull during development.

I talk not about wishes of somebody ) Moreover, if it will depend on
wishes it potentially can lead to misusing. IMO using the same code at
runtime for view generation is better approach.

>> I really don't understand why we should export system views content
>> (especially periodically). Real life use case is take view content on
>> demand. So we should have public API for it, SQL API and JMX. There is
>> no need any exporters.

> What if we want to export lists to log or via http, etc?

If we will have public API for views then we can use REST for access
to this API. Also you can use public API directly. What is the reaal
life uses cases for exporting views? Is there any database which
exports some lists to somewhere? Especially on push based model, not
on demand.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:36 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hello, Andrey.
>
> > I really don't like name MonitoringList. First of all because it isn't
> > about monitoring at all while can be useful for monitoring purposes.
> > We already have SQL system views and I think that system view is good
> > candidate for naming of new entity.
>
> SystemView is OK for me.
> I will rename enity in the PR.
>
> > I think akso that GridMetricManager is bad candidate for lists (system views) management.
>
> For me, it seems that views and metrics is extension of one another.
> If the user want to know some instant values(cache put count, cahe get latency) he use
metrics
> and one want to know list of running SQL queries one take a look into views.
>
> > There is no any interaction with lists on hot path of code flow
> > and there is no any performance impact.
>
> OK, let's remove it.
>
> > Code generation for walkers is also redundant.
>
> If you don't want, you can not use it.
> I find it pretty usefull during development.
>
> > I really don't understand why we should export system views content
> > (especially periodically). Real life use case is take view content on
> > demand. So we should have public API for it, SQL API and JMX. There is
> > no need any exporters.
>
> What if we want to export lists to log or via http, etc?
>
> > Also it would be great to involve more people to this discussion.
>
> Any feedback are welcome!
>
>
> В Пт, 13/09/2019 в 15:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет:
> > Nikolay,
> >
> > thanks a lot for clarification! I added some comments to Upsource review [1].
> >
> > Here I want to discuss some high-level issues.
> >
> > 1. Naming
> >
> > "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache
> > invalidation and naming things."
> > -- Phil Karlton
> >
> > I really don't like name MonitoringList. First of all because it isn't
> > about monitoring at all while can be useful for monitoring purposes.
> >
> > We already have SQL system views and I think that system view is good
> > candidate for naming of new entity. As result we will have consistent
> > naming which better describes domain.
> >
> > I think akso that GridMetricManager is bad candidate for lists (system
> > views) management. Because it isn't about metrics. May be new
> > SystemViewManager will better fit to this purposes.
> >
> > 2. Management
> >
> > Lists (aka system views) have life cycle now. I believe that it is
> > redundant functionality. There is no any reason for enabling/disabling
> > lists. There is no any interaction with lists on hot path of code flow
> > and there is no any performance impact.
> >
> > So lists management can be reduced to lists creation and registration
> > operations (which executes only on node start).
> >
> > 3. Code generation
> >
> > Code generation for walkers is also redundant. Amount of system views
> > in the system is strongly limited (units not dozens) so it is easier
> > to change walker by hand literally than navigate to code generator and
> > run it. Moreover, first you should add Order annotation in the proper
> > place and it make generator practically useless.
> >
> > If you still see benefit that can bring Order annotation you can use
> > reflection. Motivation is simple, system views are on not hot path and
> > I expected that API for system views will not called frequently.
> >
> > 4. Export
> >
> > I really don't understand why we should export system views content
> > (especially periodically). Real life use case is take view content on
> > demand. So we should have public API for it, SQL API and JMX. There is
> > no need any exporters.
> >
> >
> > What do you think about it? Also it would be great to involve more
> > people to this discussion.
> >
> > [1] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-1065
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:24 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Andrey.
> > >
> > > Thanks, for joining the review.
> > >
> > > Basic interface for objects list is `MonitoringList`. It provides the following
features:
> > >         * name.
> > >         * description.
> > >         * row class.
> > >         * size.
> > >         * iterator for the list content.
> > >         * attribute walker (described below).
> > >
> > > `MonitoringRow` is a marker interface for classes that can be used as a monitoring
list content.
> > >
> > > Internally, there is only one implementation of `MonitoringList`, for now,
`MonitoringListAdapter`.
> > > It adapts the content of some `ConcurrentMap` which uses widely in Ignite internals.
> > > I think, will be another implementation in the follow-up PRs.
> > >
> > > Public API changes:
> > >
> > > * New registry created `ReadOnlyMonitoringListRegistry` It provides access:
> > >         * To all lists that exist in the Ignite.
> > >         * Ability to subscribe to the list creation/removal events.
> > >
> > > * `MetricExporterSpi` changes:
> > >         * `setMonitoringListRegistry` method added
> > >         * `setMonitoringListExportFilter` method added.
> > >
> > > `MonitoringRowAttributeWalker` is a helper class for exporter implementations.
> > > Usually, exporter SPI iterates on `MonitoringRow` attributes.
> > > `SqlViewExporterSpi`, `JmxMetricExporterSpi` can be taken as an example.
> > > It can be implemented with Java reflection API, but I use more quick approach.
> > > `MonitoringRowAttributeWalker` can visit each attribute of the MonitoringRow
implementation.
> > > It's also, preserves, the order provided by the MonitoringRow implementation
author.
> > > It provides 2 main methods:
> > >         * `visitAll(AttributeVisitor visitor);` - visits each attribute of
the some monitoring row class. Provides index, name and class of attribute to the consumer.
> > >         * `visitAll(R row, AttributeWithValueVisitor visitor)` - visits each
attribute of some monitoring row instance. Provides index, name, class, value of attribute
to the consumer.
> > >
> > >
> > > В Ср, 11/09/2019 в 16:30 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет:
> > > > Nikolai,
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to review this PR but it is too large.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please describe problem and design of implemented solution?
> > > > Also javadocs for base interfaces aren't clear, too brief and doesn't
> > > > give any imagine about whole picture.
> > > >
> > > > At present it is very hard to understand the purposes of new
> > > > interfaces and walker generator, and design itself.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:16 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > IEP-35. Monitoring&Profiling. Phase2 is ready [1]
> > > > > Please, join to the review!
> > > > >
> > > > > I've implemented:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Monitoring list engine.
> > > > > * Following list implemented:
> > > > >     * Cache list
> > > > >     * Cache group list
> > > > >     * Compute task list
> > > > >     * Service list.
> > > > >
> > > > > Engine details:
> > > > >
> > > > > * `MonitoringList` added to store list data.
> > > > > * Base interface `MonitoringRow` for list data created.
> > > > > * Corresponding method added to `MetricExporterSpi`
> > > > > * `JmxMetricExporterSpi`, `SqlViewExporterSpi`, `LogExporterSpi`
updated to
> > > > > support list export.
> > > > > * JMX, SQL and other column-oriented SPI uses
> > > > > `MonitoringRowAttributeWalker` to quickly traverse all list row attributes.
> > > > > * Implementation of `MonitoringRowAttributeWalkerfor specificMonitoringRow`
> > > > > can be generated with `MonitoringRowAttributeWalkerGenerator`
> > > > >
> > > > > I prepare follow-up PR [2], also.
> > > > > Following lists implemented:
> > > > >
> > > > > * SQL tables
> > > > > * SQL indexes
> > > > > * SQL schemas
> > > > > * SQL queries
> > > > > * Continuous queries
> > > > > * Text queries
> > > > > * Transactions
> > > > > * Cluster nodes
> > > > > * Client connections(JDBC, ODBC, Thin)
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6845
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6790
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > пн, 10 июн. 2019 г. в 13:49, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since Phase 1 will be merged in master soon I've created the
ticket [1]
> > > > > > for Phase 2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scope of Phase 2(copy-paste from the ticket)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ability to collect lists of some internal object Ignite manage.
> > > > > > Examples of such objects:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   * Caches
> > > > > >   * Queries (including continuous queries)
> > > > > >   * Services
> > > > > >   * Compute tasks
> > > > > >   * Distributed Data Structures
> > > > > >   * etc...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Fields for each list(that doesn't currently exists in Ignite)
will be
> > > > > > discussed in separate tickets
> > > > > > 2. Metric Exporters (optionally) can support list export.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11905
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > В Вт, 14/05/2019 в 16:42 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > > > > > > Ticket for IEP.Phase1 created -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Пн, 13/05/2019 в 18:06 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have discussed this IEP [1] with Alexey Goncharyuk,
Anton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vinogradov, Andrey Gura, Alexey Scherbakov and Pavel Kovalenko.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Issues to address:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Study experience of following libs, tools:
> > > > > > > >     * OpenTracing
> > > > > > > >     * OpenSensus
> > > > > > > >     * DropWizard
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Support histogram sensor: Sensor that collects
values that gets
> > > > > >
> > > > > > into predefined segments
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Use more widely used naming(like in OpenSensus?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. Consider the usage of OpenSensus as a default implementation
for
> > > > > >
> > > > > > local metric storage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. To measure the performance penalty for metrics
for 5_000 caches.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 6. Some metrics should be part of public API and others
are not(may be
> > > > > >
> > > > > > changed/removed in release without warnings).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My plan for Phase #1 is the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Address the issues.
> > > > > > > > 2. Prepare public API
> > > > > > > > 3. Prepare PR for monitoring subsystem + existing
metrics rewritten
> > > > > >
> > > > > > with it.
> > > > > > > > 4. Prepare a PR with lists of each user API.
> > > > > > > > 5. Collect feedback for a #4.
> > > > > > > > 6. Design a log exposer. Consider the usage of JFR
format or some
> > > > > >
> > > > > > other widely used, tool compatible format.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=112820392
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > В Чт, 02/05/2019 в 14:02 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov
пишет:
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Maxim.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How will be recorded throughput sensor values
which will require
> > > > > >
> > > > > > an interval for the rate calculations?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I answered to this question in IEP "Design principles":
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > Sensors should contain only raw values. No aggregation
of numeric
> > > > > >
> > > > > > metrics on Ignite side.
> > > > > > > > > Min, max, avg and other functions are the matter
of an external
> > > > > >
> > > > > > monitoring system.
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Throughput is a function `(S(t2) - S(t1))/(t2-t1)`
> > > > > > > > > where S(t) is the sensor value in some point
of time t.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Seems, throughput calculation is a responsibility
of an external
> > > > > >
> > > > > > system.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that we can add an additional
parameter of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > `sensitivityLevel` to provide for the user a flexible sensor
control (e.g.,
> > > > > > INFO, WARN, NOTICE, DEBUG).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For now, I think that all sensors and lists will
be very(very!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > lightweight.
> > > > > > > > > So, we should be able to disable/enable it's,
for sure.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But, we should turn off and turn on the whole
Ignite subsystem
> > > > > > > > > for the case we have strong performance limitations
for a particular
> > > > > >
> > > > > > workload.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, we have two "level" of monitoring - INFO
and DEBUG(for
> > > > > >
> > > > > > profiling: IEP-35 - Phase 3).
> > > > > > > > > For example, AFAIK we can't disable current SQL
system views(Why
> > > > > >
> > > > > > should we?)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > В Вт, 30/04/2019 в 14:33 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov
пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > Hello Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've looked through your PRs changes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sensors
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How will be recorded throughput sensor values
which will require an
> > > > > > > > > > interval for the rate calculations? Do we
have such an example? For
> > > > > > > > > > instance, getAllocationRate() or getEvictionRate().
These metrics
> > > > > >
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > out of the scope of current PoC and IEP
as they are not related to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > user metrics, but it is a good example of
a particular metric type.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that we can add an additional
parameter of
> > > > > > > > > > `sensitivityLevel` to provide for the user
a flexible sensor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > control
> > > > > > > > > > (e.g., INFO, WARN, NOTICE, DEBUG).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It also seems that for the sensors getValue()
the completely
> > > > > > > > > > functional java approach can be used. Am
I right?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 11:44, Nikolay Izhikov
<nizhikov@apache.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > HttpExposer with Jetty's dependencies
should be detached> from
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the core module.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. module hierarchy is the essence
of the next steps.
> > > > > > > > > > > For now it just a proof of my ideas
for Ignite monitoring we can
> > > > > >
> > > > > > discuss.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I like your approach with 'wrapper'
for monitored objects,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > like don't like using 'ServiceConfiguration' directly as a monitored
object
> > > > > > for services
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Agreed in general.
> > > > > > > > > > > Seems, choosing the right data to expose
is the matter of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > separate discussion for each Ignite entities.
> > > > > > > > > > > I've planned to file tickets for each
entity so anyone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > interested can share his vision in it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, each sensor should
have a timestamp.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that *every* sensor should
have directly associated
> > > > > >
> > > > > > timestamp.
> > > > > > > > > > > Seems, we should support sensors without
timestamp for a current
> > > > > >
> > > > > > monitoring numbers at least.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it'd be great to have an
ability to store a list of a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > fixed size> of last N sensors
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What use-cases do you know for such
sensors?
> > > > > > > > > > > We have plans to support fixed size
lists to show "Last N SQL
> > > > > >
> > > > > > queries" or similar data.
> > > > > > > > > > > Essentially, a sensor is just a single
value with the name and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > known meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It'd be great if you provide a
more extended test to show the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > work of> the system.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, for that :)
> > > > > > > > > > > When you run 'MonitoringSelfTest' you
should open
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://localhost:8080/ignite/monitoring to view exposed info.
> > > > > > > > > > > I provide this info in gist -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://gist.github.com/nizhikov/aa1e6222e6a3456472b881b8deb0e24d
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I will extend this test to print results
to console in the next
> > > > > >
> > > > > > iterations - stay tuned :)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > В Вс, 28/04/2019 в 23:35 +0300,
Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I looked through PR and IEP, and
I have some comments:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It would be better to implement
it as a separate module, I
> > > > > >
> > > > > > can't say
> > > > > > > > > > > > if it is possible for the main
part of monitoring or not, but I
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe that HttpExposer with
Jetty's dependencies should be
> > > > > >
> > > > > > detached
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the core module.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I like your approach with 'wrapper'
for monitored objects, like
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'ComputeTaskInfo' in PR, and don't
like using
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'ServiceConfiguration'
> > > > > > > > > > > > directly as a monitored object
for services. I believe we
> > > > > >
> > > > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > mix approaches. It'd be better
always use some kind of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > container with
> > > > > > > > > > > > monitored object's information
to work with such data.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, each sensor should
have a timestamp. Usually
> > > > > >
> > > > > > monitoring
> > > > > > > > > > > > systems aggregate data and build
graphics according to sensors
> > > > > > > > > > > > timestamp.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it'd be great to have an
ability to store a list of a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > fixed size
> > > > > > > > > > > > of last N sensors, not to miss
them without pushing to an
> > > > > >
> > > > > > external
> > > > > > > > > > > > monitoring system.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It'd be great if you provide a
more extended test to show the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > work of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the system. Everybody who looks
to PR needs to run the test
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > > > > > the info manually to see the completeness
of sensors, this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > might be
> > > > > > > > > > > > simplified by proper test.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:56 PM
Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared Proof of Concept
for IEP-35 [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PR can be found here -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've done following changes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         1. `GridMonitoringManager`
 [2] - simple
> > > > > >
> > > > > > implementation of manager to store all monitoring info
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         2. `HttpPullExposerSpi`
[3] - pull exposer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > implementation that can respond with JSON from
> > > > > > http://localhost:8080/ignite/monitoring. JSON content can be
veiwed in
> > > > > > gist [4]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         3. Compute task start
and finish monitoring in
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "compute" list [5]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         4. Service registration
are monitored in "service"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > list - [6]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         5. Current `IgniteSpiMBeanAdapter`
rewritten using
> > > > > >
> > > > > > `GridMonitoringManager` [7]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Design principles, monitoring
subsystem details and new
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ignite entities can be found in IEP [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My next steps will be:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         1. Implementation
of JMX exposer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         2. Registration of
all "lists" and "sensor groups"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > as a SQL System view.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         3. Add monitoring
for all unmonitoring Ignite API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (described in IEP).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         4. Rewrite existing
jmx metrics using
> > > > > >
> > > > > > GridMonitoringManager.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, share you thoughts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of JSON file:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > >     "COMPUTE": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >       "tasks": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         "name": "tasks",
> > > > > > > > > > > > >         "rows": [
> > > > > > > > > > > > >           {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >             "id": "0798817a-eeec-4386-9af7-94edb39ffced",
> > > > > > > > > > > > >             "sessionId":
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "a1814f95a61-912451ff-ca7b-4764-a7fd-728f6a900000",
> > > > > > > > > > > > >             "data": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >               "taskClasName":
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "org.apache.ignite.monitoring.MonitoringSelfTest$$Lambda$145/1500885480",
> > > > > > > > > > > > >               "startTime":
1556287337944,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >               "timeout":
9223372036854776000,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >               "execName":
null
> > > > > > > > > > > > >             },
> > > > > > > > > > > > >             "name": "anotherBroadcast"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >           }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=112820392
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-ec7d5cf5e35b99303deb9accee153c50R34
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-32239c45e0ae3b692af2eae7078e1436R47
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [4]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://gist.github.com/nizhikov/aa1e6222e6a3456472b881b8deb0e24d
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [5]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-d651ed29d07bd0c5ce291654a3254cc0R749
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [6]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-0b4e54fbda2b0da1c10eff48416336f6R1606
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [7]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-4398bf118150500e059069b3a1638ec7R61
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >

Mime
View raw message