Re[2]: Performance of Ignite as key-value datastore. C++ Thin Client.

[Zhenya Stanilovsky <ar...@mail.ru>]

1. Yes i know about this message, don`t pay attention (just remove it). Ilya is this param is safe to use ?
2. plz rerun your nodes with -DIGNITE_QUIET=false jvm param (there are would be more informative logs).
3 You have long running tx in your logs (IGNITE_QUIET will help to detect why it hangs) you can configure default timeout [1]
4 If tx will hang one more — plz attach new logs and up this thread.
 
[1] https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/configuration/TransactionConfiguration.html#setDefaultTxTimeout-long-
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>>Hi Zhenya,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your quick response
>>>>
>>>>1. If it is not set, the following message appears on node's startup:
>>>>[13:22:33] Message queue limit is set to 0 which may lead to potential OOMEs
>>>>when running cache operations in FULL_ASYNC or PRIMARY_SYNC modes due to
>>>>message queues growth on sender and receiver sides.
>>>>2. No improvement.
>>>>3. I've got the same question :) Here are the cluster logs until it
>>>>crashes: ignite-9f92ab96.log
>>>>< http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/file/t3059/ignite-9f92ab96.log >
>>>>4. Yes, I'm aware about that since I reported it... but there is only one
>>>>transaction in the test
>>>>5. Yes, 4Gb is large enough. There is only one single transaction of 600MB
>>>>6. Yes, in fact, that's why I modified the page size
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Sent from:  http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Re[2]: Performance of Ignite as key-value datastore. C++ Thin Client.

[jjimeno <jj...@omp.com>]

2. I've found this:

[16:02:23,836][WARNING][client-connector-#139][GridDhtColocatedCache] <vds>
Unordered map java.util.LinkedHashMap is used for putAll operation on cache
vds. This can lead to a distribut
ed deadlock. Switch to a sorted map like TreeMap instead.

... but I'm using a c++ std::map.  It's hard to think that it is being
mapped to a unordered map in Java and how a deadlock is possible if keys are
no repeated.  I've modified my code to use Put instead of PutAll and the
transaction finishes... in 312sec

There is a way of fixing this?

3. I think the fix to the problem is not increasing a timeout but in
reducing the commit time. More than 300 sec for a transaction of 600MB is
not what I would expect from Ignite



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Re[2]: Performance of Ignite as key-value datastore. C++ Thin Client.

[jjimeno <jj...@omp.com>]

Hello,

I understand these deadlocks when there are more than one PuAll at the same
time, but in this case there is only one, and it’s always sorted.



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Re[2]: Performance of Ignite as key-value datastore. C++ Thin Client.

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

> how a deadlock is possible if keys are no repeated
Deadlock is possible when two putAll operations are executed
at the same time on the same keys, but key order is different in the
provided map.

> LinkedHashMap is used for putAll operation
> but I'm using a c++ std::map
Unfortunately, this warning is misleading when a non-Java client is used.
Make sure that the order of entries is always the same when doing a putAll
operation.
If your current test does not perform multiple operations in parallel, this
is not an issue.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:40 PM jjimeno <jj...@omp.com> wrote:

> Hello! Ok... thanks Ilya!
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
>

Re: Re[2]: Performance of Ignite as key-value datastore. C++ Thin Client.

[jjimeno <jj...@omp.com>]

Hello! Ok... thanks Ilya!



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Re[2]: Performance of Ignite as key-value datastore. C++ Thin Client.

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Hello!

It seems to me that you should never use messageQueueLimit - if you ever
saturate your network it will break down your cluster.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 27 янв. 2021 г. в 15:55, Zhenya Stanilovsky <ar...@mail.ru>:

> 1. Yes i know about this message, don`t pay attention (just remove it). Ilya is this param is safe to use ?
> 2. plz rerun your nodes with -DIGNITE_QUIET=false jvm param (there are would be more informative logs).
>
> 3 You have long running tx in your logs (IGNITE_QUIET will help to detect
> why it hangs) you can configure default timeout [1]
> 4 If tx will hang one more — plz attach new logs and up this thread.
>
> [1]
> https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/configuration/TransactionConfiguration.html#setDefaultTxTimeout-long-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Zhenya,
>
> Thanks for your quick response
>
> 1. If it is not set, the following message appears on node's startup:
> [13:22:33] Message queue limit is set to 0 which may lead to potential
> OOMEs
> when running cache operations in FULL_ASYNC or PRIMARY_SYNC modes due to
> message queues growth on sender and receiver sides.
> 2. No improvement.
> 3. I've got the same question :) Here are the cluster logs until it
> crashes: ignite-9f92ab96.log
> <
> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/file/t3059/ignite-9f92ab96.log
> >
> 4. Yes, I'm aware about that since I reported it... but there is only one
> transaction in the test
> 5. Yes, 4Gb is large enough. There is only one single transaction of 600MB
> 6. Yes, in fact, that's why I modified the page size
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>