Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[agura]

> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.

 Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&

> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.

I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.

Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.

My choice: correctness over performance.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
>
> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>
> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.
>
>
> > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> >
> >>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >
> > Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
> >
> >>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current master so we should change this code carefully
> >
> > This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrey.
> >>
> >>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >>
> >> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >>
> >>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> >>
> >> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
> >>
> >>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >>
> >> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current master so we should change this code carefully
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> >>
> >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> >>>
> >>> Nikolay,
> >>>
> >>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> >>>
> >>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >>>
> >>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> >>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> >>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> >>>
> >>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> >>>
> >>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> >>> affect performance.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello, Andrey.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> >>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> >>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
> >>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> >>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in the
> >>>>>>> next release:
> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> >>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
> >>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
> >>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> >>>>>>>> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
> >>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
> >>>>>>>>>> upload a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
> >>>>>>>> run
> >>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
> >>>>>>>>> cases
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
> >>>>>>>>>> pages"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> fix to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
> >>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
> >>>>>>>>>> reported,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to investigate the
> >>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>> (the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to
> >>>>>>>>>> attach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for
> >>>>>>>> Load
> >>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown
> >>>>>>>> page
> >>>>>>>>>> type*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> >>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> >>>>>>>>>> config
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> >>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> server
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement
> >>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag
> >>>>>>>>>> calculated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> >>>>>>>> deactivatable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public
> >>>>>>>>> API
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store
> >>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort
> >>>>>>>>>> (there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split
> >>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
> >>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>> patch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> >>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> >>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> >>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> >>>>
> >>
>

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Andrey.

> My choice: correctness over performance

I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
It seems we can got both.

> May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results

I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.

I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.

> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>
>> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>
> Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
>
>> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.
>
> I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
> incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
>
> Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
>
> My choice: correctness over performance.
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
>>
>> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>>
>> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.
>>
>>
>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>
>>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>>>
>>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
>>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
>>>
>>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current master so we should change this code carefully
>>>
>>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
>>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Andrey.
>>>>
>>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>>>>
>>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>>>>
>>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
>>>>
>>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
>>>>
>>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>>>>
>>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current master so we should change this code carefully
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
>>>>
>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>>>
>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>>>>>
>>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
>>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
>>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
>>>>>
>>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
>>>>> affect performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
>>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
>>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
>>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in the
>>>>>>>>> next release:
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
>>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
>>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
>>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
>>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
>>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
>>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
>>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to investigate the
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to
>>>>>>>>>>>> attach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for
>>>>>>>>>> Load
>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown
>>>>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>>>>>>> type*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
>>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
>>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag
>>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
>>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public
>>>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store
>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort
>>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
>>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
>>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Andrey,

I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
Let's do the following:

1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8

Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Andrey.
>
> > My choice: correctness over performance
>
> I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> It seems we can got both.
>
> > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results
>
> I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
>
> I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
>
> > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> >
> >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> >
> > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> >
> >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.
> >
> > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
> > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> >
> > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> >
> > My choice: correctness over performance.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> >>
> >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> >>
> >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.
> >>
> >>
> >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> >>>
> >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >>>
> >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
> >>>
> >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current master so we should change this code carefully
> >>>
> >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Andrey.
> >>>>
> >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >>>>
> >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >>>>
> >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> >>>>
> >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
> >>>>
> >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >>>>
> >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current master so we should change this code carefully
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> >>>>
> >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> >>>>> affect performance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
> >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in the
> >>>>>>>>> next release:
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
> >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
> >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
> >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
> >>>>>>>>>> run
> >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
> >>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
> >>>>>>>>>>> cases
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
> >>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to investigate the
> >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for
> >>>>>>>>>> Load
> >>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown
> >>>>>>>>>> page
> >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> >>>>>>>>>>>> config
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> server
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag
> >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public
> >>>>>>>>>>> API
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split
> >>>>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
> >>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example
> >>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
> >>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Maxim.

> Should we wait for benchmarks?

After review, these changes looks much safer for me - no additional metrics added.
I performed benchmarking for initial refactoring of `TcpCommunicationMetricsListener` on the new Metric API.

It seems, there is no need for benchmarking anymore.

> 28 янв. 2020 г., в 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>
> Andrey,
>
> I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> Let's do the following:
>
> 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
>
> Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Andrey.
>>
>>> My choice: correctness over performance
>>
>> I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
>> It seems we can got both.
>>
>>> May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results
>>
>> I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
>> Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
>>
>> I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
>> Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
>>
>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>
>>>> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>>>> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>>>
>>> Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
>>> performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
>>> metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
>>>
>>>> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.
>>>
>>> I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
>>> incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
>>>
>>> Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
>>> important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
>>>
>>> My choice: correctness over performance.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
>>>>
>>>> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>>>> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>>>>
>>>> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>>>>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>>>>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
>>>>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>>>>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current master so we should change this code carefully
>>>>>
>>>>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
>>>>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>>>>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current master so we should change this code carefully
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
>>>>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
>>>>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
>>>>>>> affect performance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
>>>>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>>>>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
>>>>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
>>>>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>>>>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>>>>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in the
>>>>>>>>>>> next release:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
>>>>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
>>>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to investigate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Load
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown
>>>>>>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
>>>>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public
>>>>>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split
>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
>>>>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:

[1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
*[Unassigned]* OPEN
IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
Kalashnikov] OPEN

[1]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
[5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489


On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrey,
>
> I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> Let's do the following:
>
> 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
>
> Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Andrey.
> >
> > > My choice: correctness over performance
> >
> > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > It seems we can got both.
> >
> > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't
> have benchmark results
> >
> > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any
> performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> >
> > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> >
> > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> > >
> > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > >
> > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > >
> > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers
> to do it.
> > >
> > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
> > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > >
> > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > >
> > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > >>
> > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > >>
> > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers
> to do it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> > >>>
> > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> (c)
> > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > >>>
> > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> bug.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor
> in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > >>>
> > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Andrey.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> (c)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> > >>>>
> > >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark
> results.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor
> in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> написал(а):
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> (c)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> > >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> > >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> > >>>>> affect performance.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> > >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> написал(а):
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release
> scope [1].
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics
> gathered
> > >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> > >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node
> ID.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Folks,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release
> branch.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to
> include in the
> > >>>>>>>>> next release:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> > >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a
> release
> > >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built
> from current
> > >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies'
> versions:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8?
> No point of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process
> is alive.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8
> branch and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)?
> I want
> > >>>>>>>>>> run
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the
> branch.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8
> release
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the
> checkpoint is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2],
> which
> > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown
> in some
> > >>>>>>>>>>> cases
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many
> dirty
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to
> include
> > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure
> it's
> > >>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system
> threads are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to investigate
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket
> creator to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next
> release?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master,
> if no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted
> for
> > >>>>>>>>>> Load
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration:
> Unknown
> > >>>>>>>>>> page
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> > >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node
> client
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> server
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API
> Improvement
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled
> flag
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> > >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the
> public
> > >>>>>>>>>>> API
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is
> started.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra
> Store
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be
> split
> > >>>>>>>>>> up
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
> > >>>>>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For
> example
> > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> > >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
> > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> > >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> > >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
>

[agura]

Hi,

one more issue which should be fixed in 2.8 release [1]

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12598

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Igniters,
>
>
> Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
>
> [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> Kalashnikov] OPEN
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > Let's do the following:
> >
> > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> >
> > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > [2]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrey.
> > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > >
> > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > It seems we can got both.
> > >
> > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't
> > have benchmark results
> > >
> > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any
> > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > >
> > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > >
> > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> > > >
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > > >
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers
> > to do it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
> > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > > >
> > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >>
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers
> > to do it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> > bug.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor
> > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Andrey.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark
> > results.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor
> > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > написал(а):
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> > > >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> > > >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> > > >>>>> affect performance.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> > > >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > написал(а):
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release
> > scope [1].
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics
> > gathered
> > > >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> > > >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node
> > ID.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release
> > branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to
> > include in the
> > > >>>>>>>>> next release:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a
> > release
> > > >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built
> > from current
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies'
> > versions:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8?
> > No point of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process
> > is alive.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8
> > branch and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)?
> > I want
> > > >>>>>>>>>> run
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the
> > branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8
> > release
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the
> > checkpoint is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2],
> > which
> > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown
> > in some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many
> > dirty
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to
> > include
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure
> > it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system
> > threads are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to investigate
> > the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket
> > creator to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next
> > release?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master,
> > if no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Load
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration:
> > Unknown
> > > >>>>>>>>>> page
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> > > >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node
> > client
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> server
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API
> > Improvement
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled
> > flag
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> > > >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the
> > public
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> API
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is
> > started.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra
> > Store
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be
> > split
> > > >>>>>>>>>> up
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
> > > >>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For
> > example
> > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> > > >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
> > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> > > >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I have just promoted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12504 to
Blocker.

The reasoning for this, you can't seem to configure baseline auto-adjust
until your node is up (there is no configuration for this), and it will
refuse nodes joining outright with default configuration, making it
impossible to assemble some clusters. I will file a separate ticket about
that.

"Caused by: class org.apache.ignite.spi.IgniteSpiException: Joining
persistence node to in-memory cluster couldn't be allowed due to baseline
auto-adjust is enabled and timeout equal to 0"

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 14:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> one more issue which should be fixed in 2.8 release [1]
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12598
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
> >
> > [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> > IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> getting
> > down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> > IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> > Kalashnikov] OPEN
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > > Let's do the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> > >
> > > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > [2]
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > >
> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrey.
> > > >
> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > > >
> > > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > > It seems we can got both.
> > > >
> > > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> don't
> > > have benchmark results
> > > >
> > > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring
> any
> > > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > > >
> > > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > > >
> > > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> написал(а):
> > > > >
> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance
> of
> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback
> all
> > > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > > > >
> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > > to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current
> behavior is
> > > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > > > >
> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> > > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance
> of
> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > > to do it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> написал(а):
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
> work."
> > > (c)
> > > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or
> analyzed
> > > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> > > bug.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> nor
> > > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Andrey.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
> work."
> > > (c)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark
> > > results.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> nor
> > > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > > написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for
> PR(comparing
> > > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
> work."
> > > (c)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> > > > >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is
> cumulative
> > > > >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication
> message.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it
> will
> > > > >>>>> affect performance.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> > > > >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to
> me.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for
> PR(comparing
> > > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication
> message.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > > написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release
> > > scope [1].
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics
> > > gathered
> > > > >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in
> case of
> > > > >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of
> node
> > > ID.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release
> > > branch.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > > >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > > >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you
> to
> > > include in the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> next release:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > > >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really
> a
> > > release
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages
> built
> > > from current
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies'
> > > versions:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of
> 2.8?
> > > No point of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release
> process
> > > is alive.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8
> > > branch and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release
> process)?
> > > I want
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> run
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the
> > > branch.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to
> 2.8
> > > release
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC
> pressure.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the
> > > checkpoint is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching
> [2],
> > > which
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be
> thrown
> > > in some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too
> many
> > > dirty
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to
> > > include
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not
> sure
> > > it's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system
> > > threads are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to
> investigate
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket
> > > creator to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next
> > > release?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in
> master,
> > > if no
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release
> issues:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets
> Corrupted
> > > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Load
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration:
> > > Unknown
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> page
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3
> Based
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node
> > > client
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> server
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API
> > > Improvement
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled
> > > flag
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to
> the
> > > public
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> API
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is
> > > started.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1]
> [2]?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev
> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra
> > > Store
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much
> effort
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be
> > > split
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> up
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin
> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to
> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For
> > > example
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive
> Jackson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
>

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

Actually, it seems to me that such scenario "Joining persistence node to
in-memory cluster" is not really supported in either 2.7.6 or 2.8.

I suggest disabling it for good. What do you think? Nobody ever told us
that it is broken, we can assume noone ever wanted that. We have no test
coverage for it.

Still, I think that baseline auto-adjust should not be enabled by default,
since it is not configurable via IgniteConfiguration.

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 16:14, Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>:

> Hello!
>
> I have just promoted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12504
> to Blocker.
>
> The reasoning for this, you can't seem to configure baseline auto-adjust
> until your node is up (there is no configuration for this), and it will
> refuse nodes joining outright with default configuration, making it
> impossible to assemble some clusters. I will file a separate ticket about
> that.
>
> "Caused by: class org.apache.ignite.spi.IgniteSpiException: Joining
> persistence node to in-memory cluster couldn't be allowed due to baseline
> auto-adjust is enabled and timeout equal to 0"
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 14:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> one more issue which should be fixed in 2.8 release [1]
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12598
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Igniters,
>> >
>> >
>> > Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
>> >
>> > [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
>> > IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
>> > *[Unassigned]* OPEN
>> > IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
>> getting
>> > down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
>> > IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>> > IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
>> > Kalashnikov] OPEN
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
>> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
>> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
>> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
>> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Andrey,
>> > >
>> > > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
>> > > Let's do the following:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
>> > > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
>> > > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
>> > >
>> > > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
>> > > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
>> > > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
>> > > [2]
>> > >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Andrey.
>> > > >
>> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance
>> > > >
>> > > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
>> > > > It seems we can got both.
>> > > >
>> > > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
>> don't
>> > > have benchmark results
>> > > >
>> > > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
>> > > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
>> > > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t
>> bring any
>> > > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
>> > > >
>> > > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
>> > > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
>> > > >
>> > > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
>> написал(а):
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance
>> of
>> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
>> > > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback
>> all
>> > > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
>> servers
>> > > to do it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current
>> behavior is
>> > > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
>> > > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag
>> to
>> > > TcpCommunicationSpi.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance
>> of
>> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
>> servers
>> > > to do it.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
>> написал(а):
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
>> work."
>> > > (c)
>> > > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>> > > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or
>> analyzed
>> > > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart.
>> It's
>> > > bug.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>> > > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any
>> release nor
>> > > in current master so we should change this code carefully
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
>> > > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> Andrey.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
>> work."
>> > > (c)
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>> > > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the
>> benchmark
>> > > results.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any
>> release nor
>> > > in current master so we should change this code carefully
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
>> > > написал(а):
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for
>> PR(comparing
>> > > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance
>> drop.
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
>> work."
>> > > (c)
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
>> > > > >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is
>> cumulative
>> > > > >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication
>> message.
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it
>> will
>> > > > >>>>> affect performance.
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
>> > > > >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to
>> me.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for
>> PR(comparing
>> > > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance
>> drop.
>> > > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication
>> message.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
>> > > написал(а):
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Igniters,
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8
>> release
>> > > scope [1].
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics
>> > > gathered
>> > > > >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in
>> case of
>> > > > >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of
>> node
>> > > ID.
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
>> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Folks,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release
>> > > branch.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <
>> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you
>> to
>> > > include in the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> next release:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not
>> really a
>> > > release
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages
>> built
>> > > from current
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies'
>> > > versions:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of
>> 2.8?
>> > > No point of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
>> > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <
>> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release
>> process
>> > > is alive.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of
>> ignite-2.8
>> > > branch and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release
>> process)?
>> > > I want
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> run
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the
>> > > branch.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
>> > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical
>> to 2.8
>> > > release
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC
>> pressure.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the
>> > > checkpoint is
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching
>> [2],
>> > > which
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be
>> thrown
>> > > in some
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cases
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too
>> many
>> > > dirty
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to
>> > > include
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not
>> sure
>> > > it's
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> data
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system
>> > > threads are
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to
>> investigate
>> > > the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket
>> > > creator to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next
>> > > release?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in
>> master,
>> > > if no
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release
>> issues:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets
>> Corrupted
>> > > for
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Load
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> test
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration:
>> > > Unknown
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> page
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> config
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3
>> Based
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node
>> > > client
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> server
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API
>> > > Improvement
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline
>> enabled
>> > > flag
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to
>> the
>> > > public
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> API
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is
>> > > started.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts
>> [1] [2]?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya
>> Kasnacheev <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra
>> > > Store
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much
>> effort
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be
>> > > split
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> up
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir
>> Pligin <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to
>> have
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> your
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For
>> > > example
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive
>> Jackson
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>>
>

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Ilya,


+1 to disable auto-adjustment by default
It seems the same approach can be used as implemented for disabling
pme-free [1].

[1] https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 20:16, Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Actually, it seems to me that such scenario "Joining persistence node to
> in-memory cluster" is not really supported in either 2.7.6 or 2.8.
>
> I suggest disabling it for good. What do you think? Nobody ever told us
> that it is broken, we can assume noone ever wanted that. We have no test
> coverage for it.
>
> Still, I think that baseline auto-adjust should not be enabled by default,
> since it is not configurable via IgniteConfiguration.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 16:14, Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have just promoted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12504
> > to Blocker.
> >
> > The reasoning for this, you can't seem to configure baseline auto-adjust
> > until your node is up (there is no configuration for this), and it will
> > refuse nodes joining outright with default configuration, making it
> > impossible to assemble some clusters. I will file a separate ticket about
> > that.
> >
> > "Caused by: class org.apache.ignite.spi.IgniteSpiException: Joining
> > persistence node to in-memory cluster couldn't be allowed due to baseline
> > auto-adjust is enabled and timeout equal to 0"
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 14:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> one more issue which should be fixed in 2.8 release [1]
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12598
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Igniters,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
> >> >
> >> > [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> >> > IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> >> > *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >> > IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> >> getting
> >> > down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> >> > IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH
> AVAILABLE
> >> > IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type
> [Anton
> >> > Kalashnikov] OPEN
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> >> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> >> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Andrey,
> >> > >
> >> > > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> >> > > Let's do the following:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> >> > > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> >> > > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> >> > >
> >> > > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> >> > > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> >> > > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> >> > > [2]
> >> > >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Andrey.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> >> > > > It seems we can got both.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> >> don't
> >> > > have benchmark results
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> >> > > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> >> > > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t
> >> bring any
> >> > > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> >> > > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> >> написал(а):
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the
> performance
> >> of
> >> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> >> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably
> affect
> >> > > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback
> >> all
> >> > > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> >> servers
> >> > > to do it.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current
> >> behavior is
> >> > > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is
> more
> >> > > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag
> >> to
> >> > > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the
> performance
> >> of
> >> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> >> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> >> servers
> >> > > to do it.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> >> написал(а):
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
> >> work."
> >> > > (c)
> >> > > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >> > > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or
> >> analyzed
> >> > > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart.
> >> It's
> >> > > bug.
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >> > > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any
> >> release nor
> >> > > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by
> adding
> >> > > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>> Andrey.
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
> >> work."
> >> > > (c)
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >> > > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the
> >> benchmark
> >> > > results.
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any
> >> release nor
> >> > > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> >> > > написал(а):
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for
> >> PR(comparing
> >> > > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance
> >> drop.
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
> >> work."
> >> > > (c)
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will
> show
> >> > > > >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is
> >> cumulative
> >> > > > >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication
> >> message.
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it
> >> will
> >> > > > >>>>> affect performance.
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> >> > > > >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense
> to
> >> me.
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for
> >> PR(comparing
> >> > > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance
> >> drop.
> >> > > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication
> >> message.
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> >> > > написал(а):
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> Igniters,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8
> >> release
> >> > > scope [1].
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication
> metrics
> >> > > gathered
> >> > > > >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in
> >> case of
> >> > > > >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead
> of
> >> node
> >> > > ID.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Folks,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8
> release
> >> > > branch.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <
> >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like
> you
> >> to
> >> > > include in the
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> next release:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > [hidden email]>:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not
> >> really a
> >> > > release
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages
> >> built
> >> > > from current
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >> > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential
> dependencies'
> >> > > versions:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of
> >> 2.8?
> >> > > No point of
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
> >> > > [hidden email]>:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release
> >> process
> >> > > is alive.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of
> >> ignite-2.8
> >> > > branch and
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release
> >> process)?
> >> > > I want
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> run
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to
> the
> >> > > branch.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
> >> > > [hidden email]>:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical
> >> to 2.8
> >> > > release
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC
> >> pressure.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the
> >> > > checkpoint is
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching
> >> [2],
> >> > > which
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be
> >> thrown
> >> > > in some
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cases
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by
> "too
> >> many
> >> > > dirty
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest
> to
> >> > > include
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not
> >> sure
> >> > > it's
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system
> >> > > threads are
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to
> >> investigate
> >> > > the
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the
> ticket
> >> > > creator to
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next
> >> > > release?
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in
> >> master,
> >> > > if no
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release
> >> issues:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets
> >> Corrupted
> >> > > for
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Load
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> test
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by
> expiration:
> >> > > Unknown
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> page
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> config
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3
> >> Based
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent
> node
> >> > > client
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> server
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API
> >> > > Improvement
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline
> >> enabled
> >> > > flag
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH
> AVAILABLE
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to
> >> the
> >> > > public
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> API
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all
> is
> >> > > started.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim
> Muzafarov <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts
> >> [1] [2]?
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya
> >> Kasnacheev <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran
> Cassandra
> >> > > Store
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much
> >> effort
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should
> be
> >> > > split
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> up
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir
> >> Pligin <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to
> >> have
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> your
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For
> >> > > example
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive
> >> Jackson
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >>
> >
>

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Maxim,

I received no updates from the IGNITE-12456 reporter and from the ticket
description it does not look like a corruption, so I'm moving this ticket
to 2.9 (or 2.8.1 if it will be required).

Anton,

Do you have any updates on IGNITE-12489?

вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 19:29, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:

> Igniters,
>
>
> Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
>
> [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> Kalashnikov] OPEN
>
> [1]
>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > Let's do the following:
> >
> > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> >
> > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > [2]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrey.
> > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > >
> > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > It seems we can got both.
> > >
> > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> don't
> > have benchmark results
> > >
> > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring
> any
> > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > >
> > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > >
> > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> > > >
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > > >
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > to do it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior
> is
> > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > > >
> > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >>
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > to do it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> написал(а):
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> > bug.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> nor
> > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Andrey.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark
> > results.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> nor
> > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > написал(а):
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> > > >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is
> cumulative
> > > >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> > > >>>>> affect performance.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> > > >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > написал(а):
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release
> > scope [1].
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics
> > gathered
> > > >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case
> of
> > > >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of
> node
> > ID.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release
> > branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to
> > include in the
> > > >>>>>>>>> next release:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a
> > release
> > > >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages
> built
> > from current
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies'
> > versions:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8?
> > No point of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process
> > is alive.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8
> > branch and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release
> process)?
> > I want
> > > >>>>>>>>>> run
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the
> > branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to
> 2.8
> > release
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC
> pressure.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the
> > checkpoint is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2],
> > which
> > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown
> > in some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too
> many
> > dirty
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to
> > include
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure
> > it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system
> > threads are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to
> investigate
> > the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket
> > creator to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next
> > release?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master,
> > if no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Load
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration:
> > Unknown
> > > >>>>>>>>>> page
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> > > >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node
> > client
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> server
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API
> > Improvement
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled
> > flag
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> > > >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the
> > public
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> API
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is
> > started.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1]
> [2]?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra
> > Store
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much
> effort
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be
> > split
> > > >>>>>>>>>> up
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
> > > >>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For
> > example
> > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> > > >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
> > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> > > >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Anton, thanks, the changes and suggestion look good to me.

Maxim, folks, do you mind if I cherry-pick the changes to ignite-2.8 and
move the original ticket to 2.9?

чт, 30 янв. 2020 г. в 13:16, Anton Kalashnikov <[hidden email]>:

> Hello,
>
> I spent some time investigating IGNITE-12489
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489>, but unfortunately,
> there are not enough details on the ticket. Also, all reproducers, which I
> have now, able to reproduce a couple of other problems(IGNITE-12593
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593>, IGNITE-12594
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594>) but not a source
> one.
>
> I offer the following actions:
> 1) Moving IGNITE-12489 to 2.9 due to we still don't have the reproducer,
> also we don't have details enough of this corruption and there is a
> high possibility that it has already fixed by other tickets(we have several
> tickets with corruption fix in 2.8)
> 2) Adding above mention tickets(IGNITE-12593, IGNITE-12594) to 2.8. They
> have been already finished and if the review is ok we can merge it today.
> This fixes also possible can fix  IGNITE-12489 due to they were reproduced
> by the reproducer of this ticket.
>
> Alexey Goncharuk, can you take a look at IGNITE-12593 and IGNITE-12594,
> please.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Anton Kalashnikov
>
>
>
> 30.01.2020, 12:40, "Alexey Goncharuk" <[hidden email]>:
>
> Maxim,
>
> I received no updates from the IGNITE-12456 reporter and from the ticket
> description it does not look like a corruption, so I'm moving this ticket
> to 2.9 (or 2.8.1 if it will be required).
>
> Anton,
>
> Do you have any updates on IGNITE-12489?
>
> вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 19:29, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>
> Igniters,
>
>
> Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
>
> [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> Kalashnikov] OPEN
>
> [1]
>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > Let's do the following:
> >
> > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> >
> > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > [2]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrey.
> > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > >
> > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > It seems we can got both.
> > >
> > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> don't
> > have benchmark results
> > >
> > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring
> any
> > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > >
> > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > >
> > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> > > >
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > > >
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > to do it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior
> is
> > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > > >
> > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >>
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > to do it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> написал(а):
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> > bug.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> nor
> > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Andrey.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark
> > results.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> nor
> > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > написал(а):
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> > > >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is
> cumulative
> > > >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> > > >>>>> affect performance.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> > > >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > написал(а):
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release
> > scope [1].
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics
> > gathered
> > > >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case
> of
> > > >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of
> node
> > ID.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release
> > branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to
> > include in the
> > > >>>>>>>>> next release:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a
> > release
> > > >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages
> built
> > from current
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies'
> > versions:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8?
> > No point of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process
> > is alive.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8
> > branch and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release
> process)?
> > I want
> > > >>>>>>>>>> run
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the
> > branch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to
> 2.8
> > release
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC
> pressure.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the
> > checkpoint is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2],
> > which
> > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown
> > in some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too
> many
> > dirty
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to
> > include
> > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure
> > it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system
> > threads are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to
> investigate
> > the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket
> > creator to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next
> > release?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master,
> > if no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Load
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration:
> > Unknown
> > > >>>>>>>>>> page
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> > > >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node
> > client
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> server
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API
> > Improvement
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled
> > flag
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> > > >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the
> > public
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> API
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is
> > started.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1]
> [2]?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra
> > Store
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much
> effort
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be
> > split
> > > >>>>>>>>>> up
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
> > > >>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For
> > example
> > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> > > >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
> > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> > > >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
>

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Alexey,


Let's merge these issues [1] [2] to the master branch first and wait
for a couple of days to collect test statistics.

My fears based on the fact not getting new regression flaky failures
for the release branch as we've got here [3] [4].


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
[4] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/MTCGA-new-failures-in-builds-4939116-needs-to-be-handled-td45199.html



On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:45, Alexey Goncharuk
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Anton, thanks, the changes and suggestion look good to me.
>
> Maxim, folks, do you mind if I cherry-pick the changes to ignite-2.8 and
> move the original ticket to 2.9?
>
> чт, 30 янв. 2020 г. в 13:16, Anton Kalashnikov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I spent some time investigating IGNITE-12489
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489>, but unfortunately,
> > there are not enough details on the ticket. Also, all reproducers, which I
> > have now, able to reproduce a couple of other problems(IGNITE-12593
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593>, IGNITE-12594
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594>) but not a source
> > one.
> >
> > I offer the following actions:
> > 1) Moving IGNITE-12489 to 2.9 due to we still don't have the reproducer,
> > also we don't have details enough of this corruption and there is a
> > high possibility that it has already fixed by other tickets(we have several
> > tickets with corruption fix in 2.8)
> > 2) Adding above mention tickets(IGNITE-12593, IGNITE-12594) to 2.8. They
> > have been already finished and if the review is ok we can merge it today.
> > This fixes also possible can fix  IGNITE-12489 due to they were reproduced
> > by the reproducer of this ticket.
> >
> > Alexey Goncharuk, can you take a look at IGNITE-12593 and IGNITE-12594,
> > please.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Anton Kalashnikov
> >
> >
> >
> > 30.01.2020, 12:40, "Alexey Goncharuk" <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > I received no updates from the IGNITE-12456 reporter and from the ticket
> > description it does not look like a corruption, so I'm moving this ticket
> > to 2.9 (or 2.8.1 if it will be required).
> >
> > Anton,
> >
> > Do you have any updates on IGNITE-12489?
> >
> > вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 19:29, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
> >
> > [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> > IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
> > down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> > IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> > Kalashnikov] OPEN
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > > Let's do the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> > >
> > > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > [2]
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > >
> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrey.
> > > >
> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > > >
> > > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > > It seems we can got both.
> > > >
> > > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> > don't
> > > have benchmark results
> > > >
> > > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring
> > any
> > > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > > >
> > > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > > >
> > > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> написал(а):
> > > > >
> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > > > >
> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> > servers
> > > to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior
> > is
> > > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > > > >
> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> > > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> > servers
> > > to do it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > написал(а):
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > > (c)
> > > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> > > bug.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> > nor
> > > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Andrey.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > > (c)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > > > >>>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark
> > > results.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> > nor
> > > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > > написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> > > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > > (c)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> > > > >>>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is
> > cumulative
> > > > >>>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> > > > >>>>> affect performance.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hello, Andrey.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> > > > >>>>>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing
> > > to current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> > > > >>>>>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]>
> > > написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release
> > > scope [1].
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics
> > > gathered
> > > > >>>>>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of
> > node
> > > ID.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release
> > > branch.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > > >>>>>>>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > > >>>>>>>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to
> > > include in the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> next release:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > > > >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a
> > > release
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages
> > built
> > > from current
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.8 branch:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies'
> > > versions:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8?
> > > No point of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process
> > > is alive.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, Maxim,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8
> > > branch and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> upload a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release
> > process)?
> > > I want
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> run
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the
> > > branch.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to
> > 2.8
> > > release
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we must include them.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC
> > pressure.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the
> > > checkpoint is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2],
> > > which
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown
> > > in some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cases
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (data
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too
> > many
> > > dirty
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pages"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to
> > > include
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> fix to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.8
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. What do you think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure
> > > it's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> data
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system
> > > threads are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, there is no enough information to
> > investigate
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket
> > > creator to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attach
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next
> > > release?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master,
> > > if no
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections, can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted
> > > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Load
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> test
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration:
> > > Unknown
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> page
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> type*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> example-ignite.xml
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discovery)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node
> > > client
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> server
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API
> > > Improvement
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izhikov]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled
> > > flag
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> deactivatable
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Sergei
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the
> > > public
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> API
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Improvement
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [8]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [7]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [9]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is
> > > started.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1]
> > [2]?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra
> > > Store
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on the ticket?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much
> > effort
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (there's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be
> > > split
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> up
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done later.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> patch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into 2.8
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For
> > > example
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies here:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest to uprgrade
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jackson
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version from other modules.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ivan Bessonov
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Sounds good, will do!

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


Let me share the current status of the release.

1.
Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.

2.
Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
to 2.8.1 release.
The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
will be covered by [1] [2].
The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the issue.

3.
A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
cluster (see [5] for details).
I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.


Will keep you posted.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
[5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sounds good, will do!

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.

Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
do it soon.
Please, take a look.


[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Igniters,
>
>
> Let me share the current status of the release.
>
> 1.
> Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
>
> 2.
> Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> to 2.8.1 release.
> The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> will be covered by [1] [2].
> The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the issue.
>
> 3.
> A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> cluster (see [5] for details).
> I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
>
>
> Will keep you posted.
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> [5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds good, will do!

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

Maxim,

A couple of questions:
1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
a separate block.
2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
2.8 users will be able to use that integration?

ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:

>
> Igniters,
>
>
> I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
>
> Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> do it soon.
> Please, take a look.
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
>
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > Let me share the current status of the release.
> >
> > 1.
> > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> >
> > 2.
> > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> > to 2.8.1 release.
> > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the issue.
> >
> > 3.
> > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> >
> >
> > Will keep you posted.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > [5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good, will do!

--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Ivan,

> Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was added?

I think we should. Will do.
Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
@IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
else?

> As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?

Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
as possible.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Maxim,
>
> A couple of questions:
> 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
> state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
> a separate block.
> 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
>
> ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> >
> > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> > do it soon.
> > Please, take a look.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > >
> > > 2.
> > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the issue.
> > >
> > > 3.
> > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > >
> > >
> > > Will keep you posted.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > [5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good, will do!
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin

[Ivan Bessonov]

Hello Igniters,

I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage component.
Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
breaking binary compatibility.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638

ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:

> Ivan,
>
> > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was added?
>
> I think we should. Will do.
> Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> else?
>
> > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
> users will be able to use that integration?
>
> Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
> back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
> should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
> as possible.
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
>
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > A couple of questions:
> > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
> > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
> > a separate block.
> > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> >
> > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> > >
> > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> > > do it soon.
> > > Please, take a look.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > > >
> > > > 2.
> > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> > > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the
> issue.
> > > >
> > > > 3.
> > > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Will keep you posted.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > [5]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds good, will do!
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
>

--
Sincerely yours,
Ivan Bessonov

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


Current the 2.8 release status


1. The PR with RELEASE_NOTES fully updated [1].

2. Previously mentioned performance drop has not been confirmed. Run
many times in different environments. All test results within the
margin of error.
In-memory, putAll, 4 nodes, 1 client
IgnitePutAllBenchmark: +1%
IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark: -6%

3. Waiting for the vote completion
(Allow or prohibit a joint use of @deprecated and @IgniteExperimental)

4. Mark MVCC with IgniteExperimental [2].

5. Wait for ML examples to be fixed [3].

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
[2] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Mark-MVCC-with-IgniteExperimental-td45669.html
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Ivan Bessonov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello Igniters,
>
> I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage component.
> Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
> breaking binary compatibility.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
>
> ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was added?
> >
> > I think we should. Will do.
> > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> > else?
> >
> > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
> > users will be able to use that integration?
> >
> > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
> > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
> > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
> > as possible.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > A couple of questions:
> > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
> > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
> > > a separate block.
> > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> > >
> > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> > > > do it soon.
> > > > Please, take a look.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.
> > > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> > > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.
> > > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> > > > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> > > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > > > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the
> > issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3.
> > > > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > > > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Will keep you posted.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > > [5]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good, will do!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Ivan Bessonov

[Alexey Zinoviev]

Hello, Igniters

Stepan found and reported bug related to lambda
serialization/deserialization
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657
The problem is the next: the ParamGrid object has a lambda in interface and
this is an very bad for ML component, I've created a blocker bug
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12660

Also as a result of good testing from both side (from me and Stepan) we
found a lot of bugs and CVEs in hadoop related components that should be
removed in release branch too.

I'll notify then it will be finished

Will work hardly on these bugs.



вт, 11 февр. 2020 г. в 15:08, Ivan Bessonov <[hidden email]>:

> Hello Igniters,
>
> I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage
> component.
> Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
> breaking binary compatibility.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
>
> ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was
> added?
> >
> > I think we should. Will do.
> > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> > else?
> >
> > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
> > users will be able to use that integration?
> >
> > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
> > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
> > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
> > as possible.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > A couple of questions:
> > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
> > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
> > > a separate block.
> > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> > >
> > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> > > > do it soon.
> > > > Please, take a look.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.
> > > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread)
> to
> > > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.
> > > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these
> issues
> > > > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page
> type)
> > > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery)
> Nodes
> > > > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the
> > issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3.
> > > > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > > > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Will keep you posted.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > > [5]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good, will do!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Ivan Bessonov
>