You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ignite.apache.org by Kamlesh Joshi <Ka...@ril.com> on 2020/10/21 06:43:38 UTC
RE: [External]Re: Usage of TransactionConfiguration to overcome
deadlocked threads
Thanks for the update Alex.
Actually we are using BinaryObjects for such operations. Is there any implementation available (or a reference) to sort user defined types of objects ?
Thanks and Regards,
Kamlesh Joshi
From: Alex Plehanov <pl...@gmail.com>
Sent: 20 October 2020 19:54
To: user@ignite.apache.org
Subject: [External]Re: Usage of TransactionConfiguration to overcome deadlocked threads
The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Hello,
TransactionConfiguration property has nothing to do with atomic caches. Perhaps your threads were deadlocked due to atomic putAll/removeAll operations with an unordered set of keys. It's a known issue and I hope will be fixed soon. See [1] for detailed information. Until this ticked is fixed you should avoid concurrent putAll/removeAll operations with an unordered set of keys on atomic caches (putAll with HashMap as an argument, for example).
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12451
вт, 20 окт. 2020 г. в 12:16, Kamlesh Joshi <Ka...@ril.com>>:
Hi Igniters,
We are currently using ATOMIC caches for our operations. Recently, we observed cluster hang issue, the operations were stuck for quite a long time (had to bring down the cluster to resolve this). So, after some digging found that setting up below property should resolve this. Could you please confirm on below:
1. Whether this needs to be set on both Ignite servers and Ignite thick clients?
2. Or setting on cluster should suffice?
3. What should be the optimum value for defaultTxTimeout
<property name="transactionConfiguration">
<bean class="org.apache.ignite.configuration.TransactionConfiguration">
<property name="defaultTxTimeout" value="20000"/>
</bean>
</property>
Thanks and Regards,
Kamlesh Joshi
"Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, re-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
Virus Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email. The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."
"Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).
are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any
review. re-transmission. conversion to hard copy. copying. circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient. please notify the sender immediately by return email.
and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
Virus Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email.
The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."
Re: [External]Re: Usage of TransactionConfiguration to overcome
deadlocked threads
Posted by Alex Plehanov <pl...@gmail.com>.
If you have user-defined types and can sort it by yourself, you can use
LinkedHashMap as an argument to preserve the order and avoid deadlocks.
ср, 21 окт. 2020 г. в 09:44, Kamlesh Joshi <Ka...@ril.com>:
> Thanks for the update Alex.
>
>
>
> Actually we are using BinaryObjects for such operations. Is there any
> implementation available (or a reference) to sort user defined types of
> objects ?
>
>
>
> *Thanks and Regards,*
>
> *Kamlesh Joshi*
>
>
>
> *From:* Alex Plehanov <pl...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 20 October 2020 19:54
> *To:* user@ignite.apache.org
> *Subject:* [External]Re: Usage of TransactionConfiguration to overcome
> deadlocked threads
>
>
>
> The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open
> attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> TransactionConfiguration property has nothing to do with atomic caches.
> Perhaps your threads were deadlocked due to atomic putAll/removeAll
> operations with an unordered set of keys. It's a known issue and I hope
> will be fixed soon. See [1] for detailed information. Until this ticked is
> fixed you should avoid concurrent putAll/removeAll operations with an
> unordered set of keys on atomic caches (putAll with HashMap as an argument,
> for example).
>
>
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12451
>
>
>
> вт, 20 окт. 2020 г. в 12:16, Kamlesh Joshi <Ka...@ril.com>:
>
> Hi Igniters,
>
>
>
> We are currently using ATOMIC caches for our operations. Recently, we
> observed cluster hang issue, the operations were stuck for quite a long
> time (had to bring down the cluster to resolve this). So, after some
> digging found that setting up below property should resolve this. Could you
> please confirm on below:
>
>
>
> 1. Whether this needs to be set on both Ignite servers and Ignite
> thick clients?
> 2. Or setting on cluster should suffice?
> 3. What should be the optimum value for *defaultTxTimeout*
>
>
>
>
>
> *<property name="transactionConfiguration">*
>
> * <bean
> class="org.apache.ignite.configuration.TransactionConfiguration">*
>
> * <property name="defaultTxTimeout" value="20000"/>*
>
> * </bean>*
>
> *</property>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Thanks and Regards,*
>
> *Kamlesh Joshi*
>
>
>
>
> "*Confidentiality Warning*: This message and any attachments are intended
> only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may be
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any review, re-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying,
> circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
> immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments
> from your system.
>
> *Virus Warning:* Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to
> ensure no viruses are present in this email. The company cannot accept
> responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or
> attachment."
>
>
> "*Confidentiality Warning*: This message and any attachments are intended
> only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may be
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any review, re-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying,
> circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
> immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments
> from your system.
>
> *Virus Warning:* Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to
> ensure no viruses are present in this email. The company cannot accept
> responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or
> attachment."
>