ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: PageMemory approach for Ignite 2.0
Date Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:50:07 GMT
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> I pushed an initial implementation of IGNITE-3477 to ignite-3477 branch for
> community review and further discussion.
> Note that the implementation lacks the following features:
>  - On-heap deserialized values cache
>  - Full LOCAL cache support
>  - Eviction policies
>  - Multiple memory pools
>  - Distributed joins support
>  - Off-heap circular remove buffer
>  - Maybe something else I missed

Do we have *blocker* tickets for all the remaining issues? Ignite 2.0 will
have to support everything in Ignite 1.0. Otherwise we will not be able to

> The subject of this discussion is to determine whether the PageMemory
> approach is a way to go, because the this implementation is almost 2x
> slower than current 2.0 branch. There is some room for improvement, but I
> am not completely sure we can gain the same performance numbers as in 2.0.

I would rephrase this. We should all assume that the PageMemory approach is
the right approach. Here are the main benefits:

- completely off-heap (minimal GC overhead)
- predictable memory size
- ability to extend to external store, like disk, without serialization
- etc...

Let's collectively work on ensuring that it can perform as fast as Ignite
1.8.x. If after a thorough investigation we decide that PageMemory cannot
perform, then we can start thinking about other approaches.

> I encourage the community to review the code and architecture and share
> their thoughts here.

Completely agree. If anyone has extra cycles, please review the code and
suggest any improvements.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message