Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code
and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite
helpful (thanks Denis!).

It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so
more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be caused
by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?

Thanks!
  Cos
--
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.


On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak" branch was
> created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date for 2.1
> is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize the
> release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1 release to
> this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
>
> Vladimir.
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Denis,
>>
>> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if nobody
>> minds.
>>
>> Vladimir.
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Igniters,
>>>
>>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout out all
>>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
>>>
>>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light [1] to
>>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to dive
>>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make it
>>> available in the nearest release.
>>>
>>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July 15th). Is
>>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager creating the
>>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE command
>>> > - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
>>> >
>>> > IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread - in
>>> > progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of tests.
>>> > ETA is Friday.
>>> >
>>> > IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE command - in
>>> > progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
>>> >
>>> > Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to 2.2.
>>> >
>>> > - Alex
>>> >
>>> > 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <[hidden email]>:
>>> >>   1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up grid with
>>> >>   persistence is enabled
>>> >>   It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363.
>>> >>   Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
>>> >>   2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics interface
>>> >>   improvements
>>> >>   A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only today
>>> and
>>> >>   requires several days to implement.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Folks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver will be
>>> >>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
>>> >>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are implemented and
>>> ready
>>> >>> for review;
>>> >>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and ready for
>>> >>> review;
>>> >>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable / writable
>>> cursors
>>> >>> will not be supported in 2.1.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Folks,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June 2), Could
>>> you
>>> >>>> please share current status of your major features?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> [hidden email]
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1 release then.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
>>> >>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
>>> >>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
>>> >>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support Ignite’s
>>> CREATE
>>> >>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to make it
>>> happen
>>> >>>>>> in
>>> >>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> —
>>> >>>>>> Denis
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer deployment
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate support in the
>>> API
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> via
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> extension methods.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can reschedule
>>> it for
>>> >>>>>>> later versions.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you should
>>> always
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> keep
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't see how
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> by-page
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> compression will solve it.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and indexing
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> compatible),
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> this
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or fields with
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> large
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> objects.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for string
>>> fileds.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as applied to
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> by-page
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> compression.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> [hidden email]
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB) to store
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> objects
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> in
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of incriasing
>>> of CPU
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
>>> querying. How
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> do
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> we
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1 release.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing efforts
>>> should be
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a transactional
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
>>> (database
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache,
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> data
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be supported as
>>> usual,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> no
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> changes
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include essential
>>> SQL
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> related
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC support,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> advanced
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> DDL
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite as a SQL
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> database.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to Ignite as
>>> an
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing our time
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release this way:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
>>> accepted by
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> The
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the store
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>   Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - CREATE & DROP table commands:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4509
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    -
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Linear regression algorithms:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts, ideas and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> —
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Taras Ledkov
>>> >>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Vyacheslav, Denis,

7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what is
more important - persistent store has been merged only several days ago. We
need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
16 July - code freeze
17-21 July - QA
21-24 July - vote and release

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code
> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite
> helpful (thanks Denis!).
>
> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so
> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be caused
> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
>
> Thanks!
>   Cos
> --
>   Take care,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Igniters,
> >
> > Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak" branch
> was
> > created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date for
> 2.1
> > is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize the
> > release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1 release
> to
> > this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Denis,
> >>
> >> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if nobody
> >> minds.
> >>
> >> Vladimir.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Igniters,
> >>>
> >>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout out all
> >>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
> >>>
> >>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light [1]
> to
> >>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to dive
> >>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make it
> >>> available in the nearest release.
> >>>
> >>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July 15th).
> Is
> >>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager creating
> the
> >>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
> >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> Apache+Ignite+2.0
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE
> command
> >>> > - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
> >>> >
> >>> > IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread - in
> >>> > progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of tests.
> >>> > ETA is Friday.
> >>> >
> >>> > IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE command -
> in
> >>> > progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
> >>> >
> >>> > Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to 2.2.
> >>> >
> >>> > - Alex
> >>> >
> >>> > 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
> [hidden email]>:
> >>> >>   1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up grid
> with
> >>> >>   persistence is enabled
> >>> >>   It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363.
> >>> >>   Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
> >>> >>   2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics interface
> >>> >>   improvements
> >>> >>   A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only today
> >>> and
> >>> >>   requires several days to implement.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Folks,
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver will be
> >>> >>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
> >>> >>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are implemented
> and
> >>> ready
> >>> >>> for review;
> >>> >>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and ready
> for
> >>> >>> review;
> >>> >>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable / writable
> >>> cursors
> >>> >>> will not be supported in 2.1.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> Folks,
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June 2),
> Could
> >>> you
> >>> >>>> please share current status of your major features?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1 release
> then.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
> >>> >>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
> >>> >>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
> >>> >>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support
> Ignite’s
> >>> CREATE
> >>> >>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to make it
> >>> happen
> >>> >>>>>> in
> >>> >>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> —
> >>> >>>>>> Denis
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer deployment
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate support in
> the
> >>> API
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> via
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> extension methods.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can reschedule
> >>> it for
> >>> >>>>>>> later versions.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you should
> >>> always
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> keep
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't see how
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> by-page
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> compression will solve it.
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and indexing
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> compatible),
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> this
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or fields
> with
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> large
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> objects.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for string
> >>> fileds.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as applied
> to
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> by-page
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> compression.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> :
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB) to
> store
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> objects
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> in
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
> incriasing
> >>> of CPU
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
> >>> querying. How
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> do
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> we
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
> release.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing efforts
> >>> should be
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
> transactional
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
> >>> (database
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache,
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> data
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be supported as
> >>> usual,
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> changes
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
> essential
> >>> SQL
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> related
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC support,
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> advanced
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> DDL
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite as a
> SQL
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> database.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to Ignite
> as
> >>> an
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing our
> time
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release this
> way:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
> >>> accepted by
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> The
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the
> store
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>   Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - CREATE & DROP table commands:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4509
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    -
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Linear regression algorithms:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts, ideas and
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> —
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> Taras Ledkov
> >>> >>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Cos,

I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra. AFAIK
there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end 2.0
release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more information on
the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Vyacheslav, Denis,
>
> 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what is
> more important - persistent store has been merged only several days ago. We
> need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
> 16 July - code freeze
> 17-21 July - QA
> 21-24 July - vote and release
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code
>> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite
>> helpful (thanks Denis!).
>>
>> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so
>> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
>> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
>> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
>> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be caused
>> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
>> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
>> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>   Cos
>> --
>>   Take care,
>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>>
>> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
>> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Igniters,
>> >
>> > Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak" branch
>> was
>> > created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date for
>> 2.1
>> > is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize the
>> > release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1
>> release to
>> > this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
>> >
>> > Vladimir.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Denis,
>> >>
>> >> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if nobody
>> >> minds.
>> >>
>> >> Vladimir.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Igniters,
>> >>>
>> >>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout out all
>> >>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
>> >>>
>> >>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light
>> [1] to
>> >>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to
>> dive
>> >>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make it
>> >>> available in the nearest release.
>> >>>
>> >>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July
>> 15th). Is
>> >>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager creating
>> the
>> >>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>> >>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
>> >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
>> Ignite+2.0
>> >>>
>> >>> —
>> >>> Denis
>> >>>
>> >>> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
>> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE
>> command
>> >>> > - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread - in
>> >>> > progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of
>> tests.
>> >>> > ETA is Friday.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE command -
>> in
>> >>> > progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to 2.2.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - Alex
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >>> >>   1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up grid
>> with
>> >>> >>   persistence is enabled
>> >>> >>   It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363.
>> >>> >>   Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
>> >>> >>   2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics
>> interface
>> >>> >>   improvements
>> >>> >>   A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only
>> today
>> >>> and
>> >>> >>   requires several days to implement.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <[hidden email]
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> Folks,
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver will
>> be
>> >>> >>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
>> >>> >>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are implemented
>> and
>> >>> ready
>> >>> >>> for review;
>> >>> >>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and ready
>> for
>> >>> >>> review;
>> >>> >>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable / writable
>> >>> cursors
>> >>> >>> will not be supported in 2.1.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>> Folks,
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June 2),
>> Could
>> >>> you
>> >>> >>>> please share current status of your major features?
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1 release
>> then.
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
>> >>> >>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
>> >>> >>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
>> >>> >>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support
>> Ignite’s
>> >>> CREATE
>> >>> >>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to make it
>> >>> happen
>> >>> >>>>>> in
>> >>> >>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> —
>> >>> >>>>>> Denis
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer deployment
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate support in
>> the
>> >>> API
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> via
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> extension methods.
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can
>> reschedule
>> >>> it for
>> >>> >>>>>>> later versions.
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you should
>> >>> always
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> keep
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't see
>> how
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> by-page
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> compression will solve it.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and indexing
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>> compatible),
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> this
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or fields
>> with
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>> large
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> objects.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for
>> string
>> >>> fileds.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as applied
>> to
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>> by-page
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> compression.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>> :
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB) to
>> store
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> objects
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> in
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
>> incriasing
>> >>> of CPU
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
>> >>> querying. How
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> do
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> we
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]
>> >:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
>> release.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing efforts
>> >>> should be
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
>> transactional
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
>> >>> (database
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> data
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be supported as
>> >>> usual,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> no
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> changes
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
>> essential
>> >>> SQL
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> related
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC support,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> advanced
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> DDL
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite as a
>> SQL
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> database.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to Ignite
>> as
>> >>> an
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing our
>> time
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release this
>> way:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
>> >>> accepted by
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> The
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the
>> store
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>   Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - CREATE & DROP table commands:
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4509
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    -
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Linear regression algorithms:
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts, ideas and
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> —
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>> --
>> >>> >>> Taras Ledkov
>> >>> >>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team.

And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of the
changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd suggest
we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the bits.
Thoughts?

Cos

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:

> Cos,
>
> I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra. AFAIK
> there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end 2.0
> release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more information on
> the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Vyacheslav, Denis,
> >
> > 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what is
> > more important - persistent store has been merged only several days ago. We
> > need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
> > 16 July - code freeze
> > 17-21 July - QA
> > 21-24 July - vote and release
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code
> >> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite
> >> helpful (thanks Denis!).
> >>
> >> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so
> >> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
> >> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
> >> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
> >> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be caused
> >> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
> >> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
> >> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>   Cos
> >> --
> >>   Take care,
> >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> >> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> >>
> >> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> >> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> >> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Igniters,
> >> >
> >> > Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak" branch
> >> was
> >> > created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date for
> >> 2.1
> >> > is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize the
> >> > release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1
> >> release to
> >> > this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
> >> >
> >> > Vladimir.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Denis,
> >> >>
> >> >> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if nobody
> >> >> minds.
> >> >>
> >> >> Vladimir.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Igniters,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout out all
> >> >>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light
> >> [1] to
> >> >>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to
> >> dive
> >> >>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make it
> >> >>> available in the nearest release.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July
> >> 15th). Is
> >> >>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager creating
> >> the
> >> >>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >> >>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
> >> >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> >> Ignite+2.0
> >> >>>
> >> >>> —
> >> >>> Denis
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
> >> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE
> >> command
> >> >>> > - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread - in
> >> >>> > progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of
> >> tests.
> >> >>> > ETA is Friday.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE command -
> >> in
> >> >>> > progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to 2.2.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > - Alex
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
> >> [hidden email]>:
> >> >>> >>   1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up grid
> >> with
> >> >>> >>   persistence is enabled
> >> >>> >>   It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363.
> >> >>> >>   Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
> >> >>> >>   2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics
> >> interface
> >> >>> >>   improvements
> >> >>> >>   A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only
> >> today
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> >>   requires several days to implement.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <[hidden email]
> >> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>> Folks,
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver will
> >> be
> >> >>> >>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
> >> >>> >>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are implemented
> >> and
> >> >>> ready
> >> >>> >>> for review;
> >> >>> >>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and ready
> >> for
> >> >>> >>> review;
> >> >>> >>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable / writable
> >> >>> cursors
> >> >>> >>> will not be supported in 2.1.
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>> Folks,
> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >>> >>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June 2),
> >> Could
> >> >>> you
> >> >>> >>>> please share current status of your major features?
> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> >>> [hidden email]
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >>> >>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]
> >> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1 release
> >> then.
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
> >> >>> >>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
> >> >>> >>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
> >> >>> >>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support
> >> Ignite’s
> >> >>> CREATE
> >> >>> >>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to make it
> >> >>> happen
> >> >>> >>>>>> in
> >> >>> >>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> —
> >> >>> >>>>>> Denis
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer deployment
> >> >>> >>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate support in
> >> the
> >> >>> API
> >> >>> >>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> via
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> extension methods.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can
> >> reschedule
> >> >>> it for
> >> >>> >>>>>>> later versions.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> >>> >>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you should
> >> >>> always
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> keep
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't see
> >> how
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> by-page
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> compression will solve it.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and indexing
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>> compatible),
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> this
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or fields
> >> with
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>> large
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> objects.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for
> >> string
> >> >>> fileds.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as applied
> >> to
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>> by-page
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> compression.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> >>> [hidden email]
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>> :
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB) to
> >> store
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> objects
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> in
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
> >> incriasing
> >> >>> of CPU
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
> >> >>> querying. How
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> do
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> we
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]
> >> >:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
> >> release.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing efforts
> >> >>> should be
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
> >> transactional
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
> >> >>> (database
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache,
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> data
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be supported as
> >> >>> usual,
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> no
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> changes
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
> >> essential
> >> >>> SQL
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> related
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC support,
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> advanced
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> DDL
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite as a
> >> SQL
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> database.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to Ignite
> >> as
> >> >>> an
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing our
> >> time
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release this
> >> way:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
> >> >>> accepted by
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> The
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the
> >> store
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>   Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - CREATE & DROP table commands:
> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4509
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    -
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Linear regression algorithms:
> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts, ideas and
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> >> >>> >>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>> —
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >>> >>> --
> >> >>> >>> Taras Ledkov
> >> >>> >>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >

[dsetrakyan]

Cos,

I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache
[VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build procedure,
release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more
time than usual to verify this release.

D.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team.
>
> And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of the
> changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd
> suggest
> we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the bits.
> Thoughts?
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > Cos,
> >
> > I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra. AFAIK
> > there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end
> 2.0
> > release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more information
> on
> > the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vyacheslav, Denis,
> > >
> > > 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what is
> > > more important - persistent store has been merged only several days
> ago. We
> > > need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
> > > 16 July - code freeze
> > > 17-21 July - QA
> > > 21-24 July - vote and release
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code
> > >> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite
> > >> helpful (thanks Denis!).
> > >>
> > >> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so
> > >> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
> > >> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
> > >> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
> > >> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be caused
> > >> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
> > >> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
> > >> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>   Cos
> > >> --
> > >>   Take care,
> > >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> > >> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> > >>
> > >> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> > >> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> > >> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Igniters,
> > >> >
> > >> > Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak"
> branch
> > >> was
> > >> > created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date
> for
> > >> 2.1
> > >> > is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize
> the
> > >> > release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1
> > >> release to
> > >> > this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
> > >> >
> > >> > Vladimir.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if
> nobody
> > >> >> minds.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Vladimir.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Igniters,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout
> out all
> > >> >>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light
> > >> [1] to
> > >> >>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to
> > >> dive
> > >> >>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make it
> > >> >>> available in the nearest release.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July
> > >> 15th). Is
> > >> >>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager
> creating
> > >> the
> > >> >>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > >> >>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
> > >> >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> > >> Ignite+2.0
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> —
> > >> >>> Denis
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
> > >> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE
> > >> command
> > >> >>> > - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread -
> in
> > >> >>> > progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of
> > >> tests.
> > >> >>> > ETA is Friday.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE
> command -
> > >> in
> > >> >>> > progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to
> 2.2.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > - Alex
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
> > >> [hidden email]>:
> > >> >>> >>   1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up
> grid
> > >> with
> > >> >>> >>   persistence is enabled
> > >> >>> >>   It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363.
> > >> >>> >>   Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
> > >> >>> >>   2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics
> > >> interface
> > >> >>> >>   improvements
> > >> >>> >>   A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only
> > >> today
> > >> >>> and
> > >> >>> >>   requires several days to implement.
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <
> [hidden email]
> > >> >
> > >> >>> wrote:
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >>> Folks,
> > >> >>> >>>
> > >> >>> >>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
> > >> >>> >>>
> > >> >>> >>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver
> will
> > >> be
> > >> >>> >>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
> > >> >>> >>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are
> implemented
> > >> and
> > >> >>> ready
> > >> >>> >>> for review;
> > >> >>> >>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and
> ready
> > >> for
> > >> >>> >>> review;
> > >> >>> >>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable /
> writable
> > >> >>> cursors
> > >> >>> >>> will not be supported in 2.1.
> > >> >>> >>>
> > >> >>> >>>
> > >> >>> >>>
> > >> >>> >>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > >> >>> >>>
> > >> >>> >>>> Folks,
> > >> >>> >>>>
> > >> >>> >>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June
> 2),
> > >> Could
> > >> >>> you
> > >> >>> >>>> please share current status of your major features?
> > >> >>> >>>>
> > >> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >> >>> [hidden email]
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>> >>>>
> > >> >>> >>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <
> [hidden email]
> > >> >
> > >> >>> wrote:
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1
> release
> > >> then.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
> > >> >>> >>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
> > >> >>> >>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
> > >> >>> >>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support
> > >> Ignite’s
> > >> >>> CREATE
> > >> >>> >>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to
> make it
> > >> >>> happen
> > >> >>> >>>>>> in
> > >> >>> >>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> —
> > >> >>> >>>>>> Denis
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer
> deployment
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate
> support in
> > >> the
> > >> >>> API
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> via
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> extension methods.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can
> > >> reschedule
> > >> >>> it for
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> later versions.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you
> should
> > >> >>> always
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> keep
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't
> see
> > >> how
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> by-page
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> compression will solve it.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and
> indexing
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> compatible),
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> this
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or
> fields
> > >> with
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> large
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> objects.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for
> > >> string
> > >> >>> fileds.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as
> applied
> > >> to
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> by-page
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> compression.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >> >>> [hidden email]
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> :
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB)
> to
> > >> store
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> objects
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> in
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> a
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
> > >> incriasing
> > >> >>> of CPU
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
> > >> >>> querying. How
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> do
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> we
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> [hidden email]
> > >> >:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
> > >> release.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing
> efforts
> > >> >>> should be
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
> > >> transactional
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
> > >> >>> (database
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache,
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> data
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be
> supported as
> > >> >>> usual,
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> no
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> changes
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
> > >> essential
> > >> >>> SQL
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> related
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC
> support,
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> advanced
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> DDL
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite
> as a
> > >> SQL
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> database.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to
> Ignite
> > >> as
> > >> >>> an
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing
> our
> > >> time
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release
> this
> > >> way:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
> > >> >>> accepted by
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> The
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the
> > >> store
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>   Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - CREATE & DROP table commands:
> > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jir
> a/browse/IGNITE-4509
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    -
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Linear regression algorithms:
> > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts,
> ideas and
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> > >> >>> >>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>> —
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> --
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > >> >>> >>> --
> > >> >>> >>> Taras Ledkov
> > >> >>> >>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
> > >> >>> >>>
> > >> >>> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Folks,

I monitored TeamCity state over several days, as well as "In Progress"
tickets. My observation is that situation gradually improving, number of
failing tests goes down, and most of the tickets in work are already
dedicated to stabilization, rather to new development. Provided that
release already has a killer-feature and a number of smaller improvements,
I propose to do the following:
- Freeze the scope right now, no more features, only stabilization
- Dedicate this week to bug fixes
- Pass to vote in the end of the week, say 14 July.

Without this I am afraid product quality will be at risk, as Persistent
Store is a huge thing, which could interfere with other components in
subtle ways.

Any objections on the plan?

Vladimir.


On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Cos,
>
> I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache
> [VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build procedure,
> release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more
> time than usual to verify this release.
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team.
> >
> > And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of
> the
> > changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd
> > suggest
> > we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the
> bits.
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > > Cos,
> > >
> > > I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra.
> AFAIK
> > > there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end
> > 2.0
> > > release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more
> information
> > on
> > > the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vyacheslav, Denis,
> > > >
> > > > 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what
> is
> > > > more important - persistent store has been merged only several days
> > ago. We
> > > > need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
> > > > 16 July - code freeze
> > > > 17-21 July - QA
> > > > 21-24 July - vote and release
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the
> code
> > > >> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly
> quite
> > > >> helpful (thanks Denis!).
> > > >>
> > > >> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release,
> so
> > > >> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
> > > >> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
> > > >> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
> > > >> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be
> caused
> > > >> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
> > > >> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
> > > >> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >>   Cos
> > > >> --
> > > >>   Take care,
> > > >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> > > >> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> > > >>
> > > >> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
> author,
> > > >> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> > > >> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > Igniters,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak"
> > branch
> > > >> was
> > > >> > created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date
> > for
> > > >> 2.1
> > > >> > is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize
> > the
> > > >> > release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1
> > > >> release to
> > > >> > this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Vladimir.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if
> > nobody
> > > >> >> minds.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Vladimir.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> Igniters,
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout
> > out all
> > > >> >>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green
> light
> > > >> [1] to
> > > >> >>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time
> to
> > > >> dive
> > > >> >>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make
> it
> > > >> >>> available in the nearest release.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July
> > > >> 15th). Is
> > > >> >>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager
> > creating
> > > >> the
> > > >> >>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > >> >>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
> > > >> >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> > > >> Ignite+2.0
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> —
> > > >> >>> Denis
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
> > > >> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE
> > > >> command
> > > >> >>> > - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread -
> > in
> > > >> >>> > progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of
> > > >> tests.
> > > >> >>> > ETA is Friday.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE
> > command -
> > > >> in
> > > >> >>> > progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to
> > 2.2.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > - Alex
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
> > > >> [hidden email]>:
> > > >> >>> >>   1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up
> > grid
> > > >> with
> > > >> >>> >>   persistence is enabled
> > > >> >>> >>   It is important improvement to fix critical bug
> IGNITE-5363.
> > > >> >>> >>   Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
> > > >> >>> >>   2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics
> > > >> interface
> > > >> >>> >>   improvements
> > > >> >>> >>   A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created
> only
> > > >> today
> > > >> >>> and
> > > >> >>> >>   requires several days to implement.
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >>> Folks,
> > > >> >>> >>>
> > > >> >>> >>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
> > > >> >>> >>>
> > > >> >>> >>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver
> > will
> > > >> be
> > > >> >>> >>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
> > > >> >>> >>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are
> > implemented
> > > >> and
> > > >> >>> ready
> > > >> >>> >>> for review;
> > > >> >>> >>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and
> > ready
> > > >> for
> > > >> >>> >>> review;
> > > >> >>> >>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable /
> > writable
> > > >> >>> cursors
> > > >> >>> >>> will not be supported in 2.1.
> > > >> >>> >>>
> > > >> >>> >>>
> > > >> >>> >>>
> > > >> >>> >>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>>
> > > >> >>> >>>> Folks,
> > > >> >>> >>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June
> > 2),
> > > >> Could
> > > >> >>> you
> > > >> >>> >>>> please share current status of your major features?
> > > >> >>> >>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >> >>> [hidden email]
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1
> > release
> > > >> then.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support
> > > >> Ignite’s
> > > >> >>> CREATE
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to
> > make it
> > > >> >>> happen
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> in
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> —
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> Denis
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer
> > deployment
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate
> > support in
> > > >> the
> > > >> >>> API
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> via
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> extension methods.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can
> > > >> reschedule
> > > >> >>> it for
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> later versions.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you
> > should
> > > >> >>> always
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> keep
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't
> > see
> > > >> how
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> by-page
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> compression will solve it.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and
> > indexing
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> compatible),
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> this
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or
> > fields
> > > >> with
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> large
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> objects.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for
> > > >> string
> > > >> >>> fileds.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as
> > applied
> > > >> to
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> by-page
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> compression.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >> >>> [hidden email]
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> :
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB)
> > to
> > > >> store
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> objects
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> in
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
> > > >> incriasing
> > > >> >>> of CPU
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
> > > >> >>> querying. How
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> do
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> we
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >> >:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
> > > >> release.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing
> > efforts
> > > >> >>> should be
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
> > > >> transactional
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use
> cases
> > > >> >>> (database
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache,
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> data
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be
> > supported as
> > > >> >>> usual,
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> changes
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
> > > >> essential
> > > >> >>> SQL
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> related
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC
> > support,
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> advanced
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> DDL
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite
> > as a
> > > >> SQL
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> database.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to
> > Ignite
> > > >> as
> > > >> >>> an
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep
> investing
> > our
> > > >> time
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release
> > this
> > > >> way:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation
> is
> > > >> >>> accepted by
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> The
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o
> the
> > > >> store
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>   Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL
> database.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - CREATE & DROP table commands:
> > > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Renewed JDBC driver:
> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jir
> > a/browse/IGNITE-4509
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    -
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Peer-class loading:
> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Linear regression algorithms:
> > > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - K-means clustering:
> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts,
> > ideas and
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>> —
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>> >>> --
> > > >> >>> >>> Taras Ledkov
> > > >> >>> >>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
> > > >> >>> >>>
> > > >> >>> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>

[dsetrakyan]

Vladimir, sounds like a good plan.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I monitored TeamCity state over several days, as well as "In Progress"
> tickets. My observation is that situation gradually improving, number of
> failing tests goes down, and most of the tickets in work are already
> dedicated to stabilization, rather to new development. Provided that
> release already has a killer-feature and a number of smaller improvements,
> I propose to do the following:
> - Freeze the scope right now, no more features, only stabilization
> - Dedicate this week to bug fixes
> - Pass to vote in the end of the week, say 14 July.
>
> Without this I am afraid product quality will be at risk, as Persistent
> Store is a huge thing, which could interfere with other components in
> subtle ways.
>
> Any objections on the plan?
>
> Vladimir.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Cos,
> >
> > I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache
> > [VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build
> procedure,
> > release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more
> > time than usual to verify this release.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team.
> > >
> > > And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of
> > the
> > > changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd
> > > suggest
> > > we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the
> > bits.
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Cos
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > > > Cos,
> > > >
> > > > I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra.
> > AFAIK
> > > > there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the
> end
> > > 2.0
> > > > release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more
> > information
> > > on
> > > > the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav, Denis,
> > > > >
> > > > > 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and
> what
> > is
> > > > > more important - persistent store has been merged only several days
> > > ago. We
> > > > > need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
> > > > > 16 July - code freeze
> > > > > 17-21 July - QA
> > > > > 21-24 July - vote and release
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the
> > code
> > > > >> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly
> > quite
> > > > >> helpful (thanks Denis!).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the
> dot-release,
> > so
> > > > >> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
> > > > >> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
> > > > >> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
> > > > >> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be
> > caused
> > > > >> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
> > > > >> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
> > > > >> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > >>   Cos
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>   Take care,
> > > > >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> > > > >> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
> > author,
> > > > >> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the
> author
> > > > >> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > Igniters,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak"
> > > branch
> > > > >> was
> > > > >> > created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release
> date
> > > for
> > > > >> 2.1
> > > > >> > is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will
> stabilize
> > > the
> > > > >> > release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1
> > > > >> release to
> > > > >> > this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Vladimir.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if
> > > nobody
> > > > >> >> minds.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Vladimir.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> Igniters,
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout
> > > out all
> > > > >> >>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green
> > light
> > > > >> [1] to
> > > > >> >>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra
> time
> > to
> > > > >> dive
> > > > >> >>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to
> make
> > it
> > > > >> >>> available in the nearest release.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to
> July
> > > > >> 15th). Is
> > > > >> >>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager
> > > creating
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >>> page like this [2] and handling all release related
> activities?
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > >> >>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
> > > > >> >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> Apache+
> > > > >> Ignite+2.0
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> —
> > > > >> >>> Denis
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
> > > > >> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE
> TABLE
> > > > >> command
> > > > >> >>> > - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery
> thread -
> > > in
> > > > >> >>> > progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots
> of
> > > > >> tests.
> > > > >> >>> > ETA is Friday.
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE
> > > command -
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> >>> > progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved
> to
> > > 2.2.
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > - Alex
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
> > > > >> [hidden email]>:
> > > > >> >>> >>   1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting
> up
> > > grid
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >>> >>   persistence is enabled
> > > > >> >>> >>   It is important improvement to fix critical bug
> > IGNITE-5363.
> > > > >> >>> >>   Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
> > > > >> >>> >>   2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics
> > > > >> interface
> > > > >> >>> >>   improvements
> > > > >> >>> >>   A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created
> > only
> > > > >> today
> > > > >> >>> and
> > > > >> >>> >>   requires several days to implement.
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >>> Folks,
> > > > >> >>> >>>
> > > > >> >>> >>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
> > > > >> >>> >>>
> > > > >> >>> >>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC
> driver
> > > will
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >>> >>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
> > > > >> >>> >>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are
> > > implemented
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >>> ready
> > > > >> >>> >>> for review;
> > > > >> >>> >>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and
> > > ready
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >>> >>> review;
> > > > >> >>> >>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable /
> > > writable
> > > > >> >>> cursors
> > > > >> >>> >>> will not be supported in 2.1.
> > > > >> >>> >>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>
> > > > >> >>> >>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>> Folks,
> > > > >> >>> >>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date
> (June
> > > 2),
> > > > >> Could
> > > > >> >>> you
> > > > >> >>> >>>> please share current status of your major features?
> > > > >> >>> >>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >> >>> [hidden email]
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1
> > > release
> > > > >> then.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to
> support
> > > > >> Ignite’s
> > > > >> >>> CREATE
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to
> > > make it
> > > > >> >>> happen
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> in
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> —
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> Denis
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer
> > > deployment
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate
> > > support in
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >>> API
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> via
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> extension methods.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can
> > > > >> reschedule
> > > > >> >>> it for
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> later versions.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you
> > > should
> > > > >> >>> always
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> keep
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I
> don't
> > > see
> > > > >> how
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> by-page
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> compression will solve it.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and
> > > indexing
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> compatible),
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> this
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or
> > > fields
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> large
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> objects.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression
> for
> > > > >> string
> > > > >> >>> fileds.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as
> > > applied
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> by-page
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> compression.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >> >>> [hidden email]
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>> :
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability
> (OOTB)
> > > to
> > > > >> store
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> objects
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> in
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
> > > > >> incriasing
> > > > >> >>> of CPU
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing
> and
> > > > >> >>> querying. How
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> we
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for
> 2.1
> > > > >> release.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing
> > > efforts
> > > > >> >>> should be
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
> > > > >> transactional
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use
> > cases
> > > > >> >>> (database
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache,
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be
> > > supported as
> > > > >> >>> usual,
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> changes
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to
> include
> > > > >> essential
> > > > >> >>> SQL
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> related
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC
> > > support,
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> advanced
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> DDL
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for
> Ignite
> > > as a
> > > > >> SQL
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> database.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> as
> > > > >> >>> an
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep
> > investing
> > > our
> > > > >> time
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release
> > > this
> > > > >> way:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation
> > is
> > > > >> >>> accepted by
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> The
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o
> > the
> > > > >> store
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>   Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL
> > database.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - CREATE & DROP table commands:
> > > > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Renewed JDBC driver:
> > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jir
> > > a/browse/IGNITE-4509
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    -
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Peer-class loading:
> > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Linear regression algorithms:
> > > > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - K-means clustering:
> > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts,
> > > ideas and
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>> —
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>> >>> --
> > > > >> >>> >>> Taras Ledkov
> > > > >> >>> >>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
> > > > >> >>> >>>
> > > > >> >>> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

That's an interesting statement to make, considering the a PMC is
legally responsible for the release they are making and voting for.
What I believe it would achieve is to give a wider group of our users
a chance to get and install the new version and try some of the most
prominent features, while giving the feedback. Even if expressed in
the form of non-binding votes.
--
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.


On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Cos,
>
> I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache
> [VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build procedure,
> release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more
> time than usual to verify this release.
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team.
>>
>> And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of the
>> changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd
>> suggest
>> we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the bits.
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cos
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
>> > Cos,
>> >
>> > I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra. AFAIK
>> > there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end
>> 2.0
>> > release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more information
>> on
>> > the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Vyacheslav, Denis,
>> > >
>> > > 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what is
>> > > more important - persistent store has been merged only several days
>> ago. We
>> > > need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
>> > > 16 July - code freeze
>> > > 17-21 July - QA
>> > > 21-24 July - vote and release
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code
>> > >> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite
>> > >> helpful (thanks Denis!).
>> > >>
>> > >> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so
>> > >> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
>> > >> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
>> > >> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
>> > >> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be caused
>> > >> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
>> > >> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
>> > >> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks!
>> > >>   Cos
>> > >> --
>> > >>   Take care,
>> > >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>> > >> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>> > >>
>> > >> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
>> > >> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
>> > >> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > Igniters,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak"
>> branch
>> > >> was
>> > >> > created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date
>> for
>> > >> 2.1
>> > >> > is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize
>> the
>> > >> > release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1
>> > >> release to
>> > >> > this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Vladimir.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Hi Denis,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if
>> nobody
>> > >> >> minds.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Vladimir.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>> Igniters,
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout
>> out all
>> > >> >>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light
>> > >> [1] to
>> > >> >>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to
>> > >> dive
>> > >> >>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make it
>> > >> >>> available in the nearest release.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July
>> > >> 15th). Is
>> > >> >>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager
>> creating
>> > >> the
>> > >> >>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>> > >> >>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
>> > >> >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
>> > >> Ignite+2.0
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> —
>> > >> >>> Denis
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
>> > >> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >> >>> >
>> > >> >>> > IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE
>> > >> command
>> > >> >>> > - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
>> > >> >>> >
>> > >> >>> > IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread -
>> in
>> > >> >>> > progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of
>> > >> tests.
>> > >> >>> > ETA is Friday.
>> > >> >>> >
>> > >> >>> > IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE
>> command -
>> > >> in
>> > >> >>> > progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
>> > >> >>> >
>> > >> >>> > Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to
>> 2.2.
>> > >> >>> >
>> > >> >>> > - Alex
>> > >> >>> >
>> > >> >>> > 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
>> > >> [hidden email]>:
>> > >> >>> >>   1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up
>> grid
>> > >> with
>> > >> >>> >>   persistence is enabled
>> > >> >>> >>   It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363.
>> > >> >>> >>   Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
>> > >> >>> >>   2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics
>> > >> interface
>> > >> >>> >>   improvements
>> > >> >>> >>   A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only
>> > >> today
>> > >> >>> and
>> > >> >>> >>   requires several days to implement.
>> > >> >>> >>
>> > >> >>> >>
>> > >> >>> >>
>> > >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>> wrote:
>> > >> >>> >>
>> > >> >>> >>> Folks,
>> > >> >>> >>>
>> > >> >>> >>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
>> > >> >>> >>>
>> > >> >>> >>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver
>> will
>> > >> be
>> > >> >>> >>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
>> > >> >>> >>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are
>> implemented
>> > >> and
>> > >> >>> ready
>> > >> >>> >>> for review;
>> > >> >>> >>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and
>> ready
>> > >> for
>> > >> >>> >>> review;
>> > >> >>> >>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable /
>> writable
>> > >> >>> cursors
>> > >> >>> >>> will not be supported in 2.1.
>> > >> >>> >>>
>> > >> >>> >>>
>> > >> >>> >>>
>> > >> >>> >>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
>> > >> >>> >>>
>> > >> >>> >>>> Folks,
>> > >> >>> >>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June
>> 2),
>> > >> Could
>> > >> >>> you
>> > >> >>> >>>> please share current status of your major features?
>> > >> >>> >>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> > >> >>> [hidden email]
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>> >>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>> wrote:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1
>> release
>> > >> then.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support
>> > >> Ignite’s
>> > >> >>> CREATE
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to
>> make it
>> > >> >>> happen
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> in
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> —
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> Denis
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > >> [hidden email]>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer
>> deployment
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate
>> support in
>> > >> the
>> > >> >>> API
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> via
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> extension methods.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can
>> > >> reschedule
>> > >> >>> it for
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> later versions.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you
>> should
>> > >> >>> always
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> keep
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't
>> see
>> > >> how
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> by-page
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> compression will solve it.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and
>> indexing
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> compatible),
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> this
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or
>> fields
>> > >> with
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> large
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> objects.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for
>> > >> string
>> > >> >>> fileds.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as
>> applied
>> > >> to
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> by-page
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> compression.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> > >> >>> [hidden email]
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>> :
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB)
>> to
>> > >> store
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> objects
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> in
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
>> > >> incriasing
>> > >> >>> of CPU
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
>> > >> >>> querying. How
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> do
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> we
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >> >:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
>> > >> release.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing
>> efforts
>> > >> >>> should be
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
>> > >> transactional
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
>> > >> >>> (database
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> cache,
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> data
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be
>> supported as
>> > >> >>> usual,
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> no
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> changes
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
>> > >> essential
>> > >> >>> SQL
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> related
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC
>> support,
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> advanced
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> DDL
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite
>> as a
>> > >> SQL
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> database.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to
>> Ignite
>> > >> as
>> > >> >>> an
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing
>> our
>> > >> time
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release
>> this
>> > >> way:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
>> > >> >>> accepted by
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> The
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the
>> > >> store
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>   Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - CREATE & DROP table commands:
>> > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jir
>> a/browse/IGNITE-4509
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    -
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - Linear regression algorithms:
>> > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts,
>> ideas and
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
>> > >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>> —
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >> >>> >>> --
>> > >> >>> >>> Taras Ledkov
>> > >> >>> >>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
>> > >> >>> >>>
>> > >> >>> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>>

[dmagda]

Cos,

IMO, If we really want to get a valuable feedback from a wider audience then in addition to the new version the audience has to be given both a high-level and deep documentation, proper messaging, etc. It will take time to soak in the information and a week might not be enough in general.

This is why I would not make the voting process longer but rather give the release and all the materials to our users and look forward to the feedback. Basing on the feedback we can always release a next version whenever is needed.

—
Denis
 

> On Jul 10, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting statement to make, considering the a PMC is
> legally responsible for the release they are making and voting for.
> What I believe it would achieve is to give a wider group of our users
> a chance to get and install the new version and try some of the most
> prominent features, while giving the feedback. Even if expressed in
> the form of non-binding votes.
> --
>  Take care,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Cos,
>>
>> I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache
>> [VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build procedure,
>> release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more
>> time than usual to verify this release.
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team.
>>>
>>> And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of the
>>> changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd
>>> suggest
>>> we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the bits.
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Cos
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
>>>> Cos,
>>>>
>>>> I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra. AFAIK
>>>> there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end
>>> 2.0
>>>> release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more information
>>> on
>>>> the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Vyacheslav, Denis,
>>>>>
>>>>> 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what is
>>>>> more important - persistent store has been merged only several days
>>> ago. We
>>>>> need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
>>>>> 16 July - code freeze
>>>>> 17-21 July - QA
>>>>> 21-24 July - vote and release
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code
>>>>>> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite
>>>>>> helpful (thanks Denis!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so
>>>>>> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
>>>>>> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
>>>>>> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
>>>>>> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be caused
>>>>>> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
>>>>>> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
>>>>>> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>  Cos
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>  Take care,
>>>>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>>>>>> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
>>>>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
>>>>>> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak"
>>> branch
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date
>>> for
>>>>>> 2.1
>>>>>>> is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize
>>> the
>>>>>>> release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1
>>>>>> release to
>>>>>>> this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vladimir.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Denis,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if
>>> nobody
>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vladimir.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout
>>> out all
>>>>>>>>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light
>>>>>> [1] to
>>>>>>>>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to
>>>>>> dive
>>>>>>>>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make it
>>>>>>>>> available in the nearest release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July
>>>>>> 15th). Is
>>>>>>>>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager
>>> creating
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>>>>>>>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
>>>>>>>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
>>>>>> Ignite+2.0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE
>>>>>> command
>>>>>>>>>> - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread -
>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of
>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>> ETA is Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE
>>> command -
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to
>>> 2.2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Alex
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>  1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up
>>> grid
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>  persistence is enabled
>>>>>>>>>>>  It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>>>  2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics
>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>>  improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>  A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only
>>>>>> today
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>  requires several days to implement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <
>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver
>>> will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are
>>> implemented
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>>>>> for review;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and
>>> ready
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> review;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable /
>>> writable
>>>>>>>>> cursors
>>>>>>>>>>>> will not be supported in 2.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June
>>> 2),
>>>>>> Could
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please share current status of your major features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <
>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1
>>> release
>>>>>> then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support
>>>>>> Ignite’s
>>>>>>>>> CREATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to
>>> make it
>>>>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer
>>> deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate
>>> support in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension methods.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can
>>>>>> reschedule
>>>>>>>>> it for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you
>>> should
>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't
>>> see
>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by-page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression will solve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and
>>> indexing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or
>>> fields
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for
>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>> fileds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as
>>> applied
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by-page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB)
>>> to
>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
>>>>>> incriasing
>>>>>>>>> of CPU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
>>>>>>>>> querying. How
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing
>>> efforts
>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
>>>>>>>>> (database
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be
>>> supported as
>>>>>>>>> usual,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC
>>> support,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite
>>> as a
>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to
>>> Ignite
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing
>>> our
>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release
>>> this
>>>>>> way:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
>>>>>>>>> accepted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the
>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - CREATE & DROP table commands:
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      https://issues.apache.org/jir
>>> a/browse/IGNITE-4509
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Linear regression algorithms:
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts,
>>> ideas and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Taras Ledkov
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Folks,

As far as I see, branch ignite-2.1 contains all necessary commits. Looks
like we are ready to start a vote tomorrow as agreed.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Cos,
>
> IMO, If we really want to get a valuable feedback from a wider audience
> then in addition to the new version the audience has to be given both a
> high-level and deep documentation, proper messaging, etc. It will take time
> to soak in the information and a week might not be enough in general.
>
> This is why I would not make the voting process longer but rather give the
> release and all the materials to our users and look forward to the
> feedback. Basing on the feedback we can always release a next version
> whenever is needed.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Jul 10, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > That's an interesting statement to make, considering the a PMC is
> > legally responsible for the release they are making and voting for.
> > What I believe it would achieve is to give a wider group of our users
> > a chance to get and install the new version and try some of the most
> > prominent features, while giving the feedback. Even if expressed in
> > the form of non-binding votes.
> > --
> >  Take care,
> > Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> > 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> >
> > Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> > and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> > might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> Cos,
> >>
> >> I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache
> >> [VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build
> procedure,
> >> release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more
> >> time than usual to verify this release.
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team.
> >>>
> >>> And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of
> the
> >>> changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd
> >>> suggest
> >>> we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the
> bits.
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Cos
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:06AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> >>>> Cos,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra.
> AFAIK
> >>>> there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end
> >>> 2.0
> >>>> release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more
> information
> >>> on
> >>>> the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Vyacheslav, Denis,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what
> is
> >>>>> more important - persistent store has been merged only several days
> >>> ago. We
> >>>>> need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline:
> >>>>> 16 July - code freeze
> >>>>> 17-21 July - QA
> >>>>> 21-24 July - vote and release
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the
> code
> >>>>>> and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly
> quite
> >>>>>> helpful (thanks Denis!).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release,
> so
> >>>>>> more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a somewhat
> >>>>>> unrelated question though: it seems that 2.0 has significant
> >>>>>> performance degradation compared to 1.8 when it get to the working
> >>>>>> with external distributed storage (like Cassandra). Could it be
> caused
> >>>>>> by all the changes that were made between 1.8 and 2.0 in the
> >>>>>> preparation for the coming persistent store functionality? Are we
> >>>>>> publishing/collecting say yardstick reports for our own releases?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>  Cos
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>  Take care,
> >>>>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> >>>>>> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
> author,
> >>>>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> >>>>>> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak"
> >>> branch
> >>>>>> was
> >>>>>>> created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date
> >>> for
> >>>>>> 2.1
> >>>>>>> is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1
> >>>>>> release to
> >>>>>>> this branch. The rest commits should go to master.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Vladimir.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Denis,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Awesome news! I'll take care of necessary release procedures if
> >>> nobody
> >>>>>>>> minds.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Vladimir.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout
> >>> out all
> >>>>>>>>> the changes appeared in 2.1.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green
> light
> >>>>>> [1] to
> >>>>>>>>> become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time
> to
> >>>>>> dive
> >>>>>>>>> into its details) and, personally, it’s absolutely fine to make
> it
> >>>>>>>>> available in the nearest release.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My proposal is to do the release by mid of July (closer to July
> >>>>>> 15th). Is
> >>>>>>>>> there anyone who is ready to take over as a release manager
> >>> creating
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> page like this [2] and handling all release related activities?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >>>>>>>>> Ignite-Persistent-Store-Ready-for-merge-td19160.html
> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> >>>>>> Ignite+2.0
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> —
> >>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Alexander Paschenko <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE
> >>>>>> command
> >>>>>>>>>> - minor comments left, ETA is Friday.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread -
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of
> >>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>>>>>> ETA is Friday.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY keyword for CREATE TABLE
> >>> command -
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> progress, made few first small steps, ETA is Friday.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Rest is closed/patch available, ignite-4994 has been moved to
> >>> 2.2.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Alex
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2017-06-01 19:03 GMT+03:00 Sergey Chugunov <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>  1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up
> >>> grid
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>  persistence is enabled
> >>>>>>>>>>>  It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363.
> >>>>>>>>>>>  Working on it, ETA - tomorrow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>  2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics
> >>>>>> interface
> >>>>>>>>>>>  improvements
> >>>>>>>>>>>  A lot of discussions were on this topic, ticket created only
> >>>>>> today
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>  requires several days to implement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver
> >>> will
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are
> >>> implemented
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> ready
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for review;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The most functions of JDBC metadata are implemented and
> >>> ready
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> review;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Transactions, batching, streaming, blobs, scrollable /
> >>> writable
> >>>>>>>>> cursors
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will not be supported in 2.1.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.06.2017 18:43, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June
> >>> 2),
> >>>>>> Could
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> please share current status of your major features?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1
> >>> release
> >>>>>> then.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code freeze: June 2nd.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting: ~ June 9
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release: ~ June 13
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support
> >>>>>> Ignite’s
> >>>>>>>>> CREATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks to
> >>> make it
> >>>>>>>>> happen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> June 22nd - June 2nd time frame.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer
> >>> deployment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (IGNITE-2492)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate
> >>> support in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> API
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension methods.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can
> >>>>>> reschedule
> >>>>>>>>> it for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later versions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you
> >>> should
> >>>>>>>>> always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't
> >>> see
> >>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by-page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression will solve it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm researching a best way for this future.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment I found only one way (querying and
> >>> indexing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is per-objects-field compression.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is a good proffit only for long strings or
> >>> fields
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression for
> >>>>>> string
> >>>>>>>>> fileds.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm researching the new page-memory architecture as
> >>> applied
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by-page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 11:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The described roadmap looks great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB)
> >>> to
> >>>>>> store
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache in a compressed form.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will allow to store more data at the cost of
> >>>>>> incriasing
> >>>>>>>>> of CPU
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with compression is indexing and
> >>>>>>>>> querying. How
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index the data if it is compressed?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start a discussion around the scope for 2.1
> >>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my vision the main direction of our ongoing
> >>> efforts
> >>>>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing in life a use case of Ignite as a
> >>>>>> transactional
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL database and HTAP platform. The current use cases
> >>>>>>>>> (database
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grid, micro services platform, etc.) will be
> >>> supported as
> >>>>>>>>> usual,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that frontier.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keeping this in mind, the roadmap needs to include
> >>>>>> essential
> >>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features as well as disk based capabilities, MVCC
> >>> support,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advanced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation and so on so forth. This is for Ignite
> >>> as a
> >>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next, Machine Learning will be a great addition to
> >>> Ignite
> >>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTAP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform offering. This is why we should keep investing
> >>> our
> >>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources in that recently released component.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having this said, I see the scope for 2.1 release
> >>> this
> >>>>>> way:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Distributed Persistent Store - if the donation is
> >>>>>>>>> accepted by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is to be done in separate discussion. W/o the
> >>>>>> store
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Ignite can only be used as In-Memory SQL database.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL Grid:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - CREATE & DROP table commands:
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4651
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Renewed JDBC driver: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4922
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Collocation based routing of SQL queries:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-4510,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      https://issues.apache.org/jir
> >>> a/browse/IGNITE-4509
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. .NET:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Peer-class loading: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2492
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - SQLDependency: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-2657
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. C++:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Compute Grid: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-3574
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. ML Grid:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Linear regression algorithms:
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - K-means clustering: https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/IGNITE-5113
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the thread and share your thoughts,
> >>> ideas and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Taras Ledkov
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mail-To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
>
>