Hey all, <OT> Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great product! </OT> I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment. We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server). The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow. I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader? To explain my observations in a little more detail: * I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config. Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration, where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for distribution to happen. * Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers. Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems fine. * When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following: - iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the JVM process. - no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle) - memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically, and stays higher even after the query is finished. So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster. Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour? I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor? I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought relevant in [2]. Any advice offered much appreciated. Thanks! James. [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531 [2] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543 _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Hey all, <OT> Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great product! </OT> I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment. We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server). The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow. I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader? To explain my observations in a little more detail: * I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config. Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration, where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for distribution to happen. * Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers. Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems fine. * When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following: - iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the JVM process. - no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle) - memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically, and stays higher even after the query is finished. So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster. Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour? I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor? I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought relevant in [2]. Any advice offered much appreciated. Thanks! James. [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531 [2] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543 _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Hi Adrian, let's forget about Lucene details and focus on DIST. With numOwners=1 and having two nodes the entries should be stored roughly 50% on each node, I see nothing wrong with that considering you don't need data failover in a read-only use case having all the index available in the shared CacheLoader. In such a scenario, and having both nodes preloaded all data, in case of a get() operation I would expect either: A) to be the owner, hence retrieve the value from local in-JVM reference B) to not be the owner, so to forward the request to the other node having roughly 50% chance per key to be in case A or B. But when hitting case B) it seems that instead of loading from the other node, it hits the CacheLoader to fetch the value. I already had asked James to verify with 4 nodes and numOwners=2, the result is the same so I suggested him to ask here; BTW I think numOwners=1 is perfectly valid and should work as with numOwners=1, the only reason I asked him to repeat the test is that we don't have much tests on the numOwners=1 case and I was assuming there might be some (wrong) assumptions affecting this. Note that this is not "just" a critical performance problem but I'm also suspecting it could provide inconsistent reads, in two classes of problems: # non-shared CacheStore with stale entries If for non-owned keys it will hit the local CacheStore first, where you might expect to not find anything, so to forward the request to the right node. What if this node has been the owner in the past? It might have an old entry locally stored, which would be returned instead of the correct value which is owned on a different node. # shared CacheStore using write-behind When using an async CacheStore by definition the content of the CacheStore is not trustworthy if you don't check on the owner first for entries in memory. Both seem critical to me, but the performance impact is really bad too. I hoped to make some more tests myself but couldn't look at this yet, any help from the core team would be appreciated. @Ray, thanks for mentioning the ClusterCacheLoader. Wasn't there someone else with a CacheLoader issue recently who had worked around the problem by using a ClusterCacheLoader ? Do you remember what the scenario was? Cheers, Sanne On 15 March 2013 15:44, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi James, > > I'm not an expert on InfinispanDirectory but I've noticed in [1] that > the lucene-index cache is distributed with numOwners = 1. That means > each cache entry is owned by just one cluster node and there's nowhere > else to go in the cluster if the key is not available in local memory, > thus it needs fetching from the cache store. This can be solved with > numOwners > 1. > Please let me know if this solves your problem. > > Cheers! > > On 03/15/2013 05:03 PM, James Aley wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> <OT> >> Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you >> all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great >> product! >> </OT> >> >> I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment. >> We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read >> requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of >> a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a >> cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server). >> >> The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene >> directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are >> retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their >> local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow. >> I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but >> from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this >> supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader? >> >> To explain my observations in a little more detail: >> * I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config. >> Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into >> the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration, >> where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for >> distribution to happen. >> * Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM >> reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers. >> Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems >> fine. >> * When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following: >> - iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the >> JVM process. >> - no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle) >> - memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically, >> and stays higher even after the query is finished. >> >> So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader >> to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster. >> Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour? >> >> I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this >> made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor >> is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor? >> I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just >> what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I >> could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought >> relevant in [2]. >> >> Any advice offered much appreciated. >> Thanks! >> >> James. >> >> >> [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531 >> [2] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543 >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

there should be no need to use a ClusterCacheLoader,

I'm glad you're finding a workaround for the disk IO but there should be no need to use a ClusterCacheLoader, the intention of that would be to be able to chain multiple grids; this is a critical problem IMHO. Seems there are multiple other issues at hand, let me comment per bullet: On 18 March 2013 12:20, James Aley <james.aley(a)swiftkey.net&gt; wrote: > Update: > > I tried again - I think I misconfigured that ClusterCacheLoader on my > last attempt. With this configuration [1] it actually appears to be > loading keys over the network from the peer node. I'm seeing a lot of > network IO between the nodes when requesting from either one of them > (30-50 MBp/s), and considerably less disk I/O than previously, though > still not negligible. > > I think, however, that both nodes are holding on to any data they > retrieve from the other node. Is this possible? The reason I think > this is the case: > * I have a fairly large test index on disk, which the Lucene > CacheLoader loads into memory as soon as the cache is created. It's > about a 12GB index, and after a flurry of disk activity when they > processes start, I see about 5-6GB of heap usage on each node -- all > seems good. Agree: that phase looks good. > * When I send requests now (with this ClusterCacheLoader > configuration linked below), I see network activity between nodes, > plus some disk I/O. I would not expect any more disk I/O to happen anymore at this point. Only case I think a disk event could be triggered is if the Lucene logic would attempt to load a non-existing key, like if there was a function attempting either: - to check if a file exists (disregarding the directory listing) - to load a data range out of the expected boundaries The reason for me to think that is that Infinispan is not "caching" null entries: we plan tombstones for 6.0 but for now if an entry doesn't exist it won't "remember" the entry is null and will try to look it up again from the usual places, so including the CacheLoader. I've opened ISPN-2932 to inspect this and add tests to cover it. > * After each query, each node grows in heap usage considerably. > Eventually they'll both be using about 11GB of RAM. Permanently even after you close the IndexReader? I'm thinking I'm afraid this Directory is not suited for you as it is expected you can fit the whole index in a single JVM: the IndexReader might request (and keep references) to all segments; in most cases it will work on a subset of segments so it could work for you but in case you need to iterate it all you might need to use a custom Collector and play with Infinispan custom commands; I can give you some pointers as we have examples of an (experimental) distributed Query execution in the infinispan query module, or I think we could play into combining Map/Reduce with index analysis. (In other words: send the computation to the data rather than downloading half of the index to the local JVM). But if this is not leaking because of the IndexReader usage, then it's a leak we need to fix. > * At the point where both nodes have lots of data in RAM, the network > I/O has dropped hugely to ~100k/s Almost looks like you have L1 enabled? Could you check that? Or the IndexReader is buffering. > * If I repeat an identical query to either node, the response is > instant - O(10ms) Well that would be good if only we could know why :) But this is not an option for you right? I mean you can't load all the production data in a single JVM? Sanne > > I don't know if this is because they're lazily loading entries from > disk despite the preload=true setting (and the index just takes up far > more RAM when loaded as a Cache like this?), or if it's because > they're locally caching entries that should (by the consistent hash > and numOwners configuration, at least) only live in the remote node? > > Thanks! > James. > > [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12685 > > > On 16 March 2013 01:19, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: >> Hi Adrian, >> let's forget about Lucene details and focus on DIST. >> With numOwners=1 and having two nodes the entries should be stored >> roughly 50% on each node, I see nothing wrong with that >> considering you don't need data failover in a read-only use case >> having all the index available in the shared CacheLoader. >> >> In such a scenario, and having both nodes preloaded all data, in case >> of a get() operation I would expect >> either: >> A) to be the owner, hence retrieve the value from local in-JVM reference >> B) to not be the owner, so to forward the request to the other node >> having roughly 50% chance per key to be in case A or B. >> >> But when hitting case B) it seems that instead of loading from the >> other node, it hits the CacheLoader to fetch the value. >> >> I already had asked James to verify with 4 nodes and numOwners=2, the >> result is the same so I suggested him to ask here; >> BTW I think numOwners=1 is perfectly valid and should work as with >> numOwners=1, the only reason I asked him to repeat >> the test is that we don't have much tests on the numOwners=1 case and >> I was assuming there might be some (wrong) assumptions >> affecting this. >> >> Note that this is not "just" a critical performance problem but I'm >> also suspecting it could provide inconsistent reads, in two classes of >> problems: >> >> # non-shared CacheStore with stale entries >> If for non-owned keys it will hit the local CacheStore first, where >> you might expect to not find anything, so to forward the request to >> the right node. What if this node has been the owner in the past? It >> might have an old entry locally stored, which would be returned >> instead of the correct value which is owned on a different node. >> >> # shared CacheStore using write-behind >> When using an async CacheStore by definition the content of the >> CacheStore is not trustworthy if you don't check on the owner first >> for entries in memory. >> >> Both seem critical to me, but the performance impact is really bad too. >> >> I hoped to make some more tests myself but couldn't look at this yet, >> any help from the core team would be appreciated. >> >> @Ray, thanks for mentioning the ClusterCacheLoader. Wasn't there >> someone else with a CacheLoader issue recently who had worked around >> the problem by using a ClusterCacheLoader ? >> Do you remember what the scenario was? >> >> Cheers, >> Sanne >> >> On 15 March 2013 15:44, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> I'm not an expert on InfinispanDirectory but I've noticed in [1] that >>> the lucene-index cache is distributed with numOwners = 1. That means >>> each cache entry is owned by just one cluster node and there's nowhere >>> else to go in the cluster if the key is not available in local memory, >>> thus it needs fetching from the cache store. This can be solved with >>> numOwners > 1. >>> Please let me know if this solves your problem. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> On 03/15/2013 05:03 PM, James Aley wrote: >>>> Hey all, >>>> >>>> <OT> >>>> Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you >>>> all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great >>>> product! >>>> </OT> >>>> >>>> I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment. >>>> We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read >>>> requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of >>>> a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a >>>> cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server). >>>> >>>> The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene >>>> directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are >>>> retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their >>>> local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow. >>>> I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but >>>> from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this >>>> supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader? >>>> >>>> To explain my observations in a little more detail: >>>> * I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config. >>>> Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into >>>> the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration, >>>> where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for >>>> distribution to happen. >>>> * Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM >>>> reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers. >>>> Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems >>>> fine. >>>> * When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following: >>>> - iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the >>>> JVM process. >>>> - no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle) >>>> - memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically, >>>> and stays higher even after the query is finished. >>>> >>>> So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader >>>> to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster. >>>> Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour? >>>> >>>> I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this >>>> made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor >>>> is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor? >>>> I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just >>>> what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I >>>> could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought >>>> relevant in [2]. >>>> >>>> Any advice offered much appreciated. >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> James. >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531 >>>> [2] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Hi Adrian, let's forget about Lucene details and focus on DIST. With numOwners=1 and having two nodes the entries should be stored roughly 50% on each node, I see nothing wrong with that considering you don't need data failover in a read-only use case having all the index available in the shared CacheLoader. In such a scenario, and having both nodes preloaded all data, in case of a get() operation I would expect either: A) to be the owner, hence retrieve the value from local in-JVM reference B) to not be the owner, so to forward the request to the other node having roughly 50% chance per key to be in case A or B. But when hitting case B) it seems that instead of loading from the other node, it hits the CacheLoader to fetch the value. I already had asked James to verify with 4 nodes and numOwners=2, the result is the same so I suggested him to ask here; BTW I think numOwners=1 is perfectly valid and should work as with numOwners=1, the only reason I asked him to repeat the test is that we don't have much tests on the numOwners=1 case and I was assuming there might be some (wrong) assumptions affecting this. Note that this is not "just" a critical performance problem but I'm also suspecting it could provide inconsistent reads, in two classes of problems: # non-shared CacheStore with stale entries If for non-owned keys it will hit the local CacheStore first, where you might expect to not find anything, so to forward the request to the right node. What if this node has been the owner in the past? It might have an old entry locally stored, which would be returned instead of the correct value which is owned on a different node. # shared CacheStore using write-behind When using an async CacheStore by definition the content of the CacheStore is not trustworthy if you don't check on the owner first for entries in memory. Both seem critical to me, but the performance impact is really bad too. I hoped to make some more tests myself but couldn't look at this yet, any help from the core team would be appreciated.

@Ray, thanks for mentioning the ClusterCacheLoader. Wasn't there someone else with a CacheLoader issue recently who had worked around the problem by using a ClusterCacheLoader ? Do you remember what the scenario was? Cheers, Sanne On 15 March 2013 15:44, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi James, > > I'm not an expert on InfinispanDirectory but I've noticed in [1] that > the lucene-index cache is distributed with numOwners = 1. That means > each cache entry is owned by just one cluster node and there's nowhere > else to go in the cluster if the key is not available in local memory, > thus it needs fetching from the cache store. This can be solved with > numOwners > 1. > Please let me know if this solves your problem. > > Cheers! > > On 03/15/2013 05:03 PM, James Aley wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> <OT> >> Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you >> all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great >> product! >> </OT> >> >> I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment. >> We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read >> requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of >> a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a >> cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server). >> >> The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene >> directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are >> retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their >> local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow. >> I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but >> from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this >> supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader? >> >> To explain my observations in a little more detail: >> * I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config. >> Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into >> the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration, >> where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for >> distribution to happen. >> * Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM >> reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers. >> Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems >> fine. >> * When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following: >> - iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the >> JVM process. >> - no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle) >> - memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically, >> and stays higher even after the query is finished. >> >> So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader >> to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster. >> Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour? >> >> I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this >> made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor >> is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor? >> I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just >> what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I >> could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought >> relevant in [2]. >> >> Any advice offered much appreciated. >> Thanks! >> >> James. >> >> >> [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531 >> [2] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543 >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Mircea, what I was most looking forward was to you comment on the interceptor order generated for DIST+cachestores - we don't think the ClusteredCacheLoader should be needed at all - each DIST node is loading from the CacheLoader (any) rather than loading from its peer nodes for non-owned entries (!!) This has come up on several threads now and I think it's critically wrong, as I commented previously this also introduces many inconsistencies - as far as I understand it. BTW your gist wouldn't work, the metadata cache needs to load certain elements too. But nice you spotted the need to potentially filter what "preload" means in the scope of each cache, as the metadata one should only preload metadata, while in the original configuration this data would indeed be duplicated. Opened: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2938 Sanne On 19 March 2013 11:51, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On 16 Mar 2013, at 01:19, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > >> Hi Adrian, >> let's forget about Lucene details and focus on DIST. >> With numOwners=1 and having two nodes the entries should be stored >> roughly 50% on each node, I see nothing wrong with that >> considering you don't need data failover in a read-only use case >> having all the index available in the shared CacheLoader. >> >> In such a scenario, and having both nodes preloaded all data, in case >> of a get() operation I would expect >> either: >> A) to be the owner, hence retrieve the value from local in-JVM reference >> B) to not be the owner, so to forward the request to the other node >> having roughly 50% chance per key to be in case A or B. >> >> But when hitting case B) it seems that instead of loading from the >> other node, it hits the CacheLoader to fetch the value. >> >> I already had asked James to verify with 4 nodes and numOwners=2, the >> result is the same so I suggested him to ask here; >> BTW I think numOwners=1 is perfectly valid and should work as with >> numOwners=1, the only reason I asked him to repeat >> the test is that we don't have much tests on the numOwners=1 case and >> I was assuming there might be some (wrong) assumptions >> affecting this. >> >> Note that this is not "just" a critical performance problem but I'm >> also suspecting it could provide inconsistent reads, in two classes of >> problems: >> >> # non-shared CacheStore with stale entries >> If for non-owned keys it will hit the local CacheStore first, where >> you might expect to not find anything, so to forward the request to >> the right node. What if this node has been the owner in the past? It >> might have an old entry locally stored, which would be returned >> instead of the correct value which is owned on a different node. >> >> # shared CacheStore using write-behind >> When using an async CacheStore by definition the content of the >> CacheStore is not trustworthy if you don't check on the owner first >> for entries in memory. >> >> Both seem critical to me, but the performance impact is really bad too. >> >> I hoped to make some more tests myself but couldn't look at this yet, >> any help from the core team would be appreciated. > I think you have a fair point and reads/writes to the data should be coordinated through its owners both for performance and (more importantly) correctness. > Mind creating a JIRA for this? > >> >> @Ray, thanks for mentioning the ClusterCacheLoader. Wasn't there >> someone else with a CacheLoader issue recently who had worked around >> the problem by using a ClusterCacheLoader ? >> Do you remember what the scenario was? >> >> Cheers, >> Sanne >> >> On 15 March 2013 15:44, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> I'm not an expert on InfinispanDirectory but I've noticed in [1] that >>> the lucene-index cache is distributed with numOwners = 1. That means >>> each cache entry is owned by just one cluster node and there's nowhere >>> else to go in the cluster if the key is not available in local memory, >>> thus it needs fetching from the cache store. This can be solved with >>> numOwners > 1. >>> Please let me know if this solves your problem. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> On 03/15/2013 05:03 PM, James Aley wrote: >>>> Hey all, >>>> >>>> <OT> >>>> Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you >>>> all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great >>>> product! >>>> </OT> >>>> >>>> I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment. >>>> We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read >>>> requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of >>>> a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a >>>> cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server). >>>> >>>> The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene >>>> directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are >>>> retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their >>>> local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow. >>>> I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but >>>> from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this >>>> supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader? >>>> >>>> To explain my observations in a little more detail: >>>> * I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config. >>>> Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into >>>> the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration, >>>> where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for >>>> distribution to happen. >>>> * Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM >>>> reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers. >>>> Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems >>>> fine. >>>> * When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following: >>>> - iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the >>>> JVM process. >>>> - no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle) >>>> - memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically, >>>> and stays higher even after the query is finished. >>>> >>>> So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader >>>> to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster. >>>> Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour? >>>> >>>> I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this >>>> made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor >>>> is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor? >>>> I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just >>>> what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I >>>> could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought >>>> relevant in [2]. >>>> >>>> Any advice offered much appreciated. >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> James. >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531 >>>> [2] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > Cheers, > -- > Mircea Markus > Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Hi Sanne On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: Mircea, what I was most looking forward was to you comment on the interceptor order generated for DIST+cachestores - we don't think the ClusteredCacheLoader should be needed at all Agree, ClusteredCacheLoader should not be necessary. James, if you're still seeing problems with numOwners=1, could you create an issue in JIRA? - each DIST node is loading from the CacheLoader (any) rather than loading from its peer nodes for non-owned entries (!!) Sometimes loading stuff from a local disk is faster than going remote, e.g. if you have numOwners=2 and both owners have to load the same entry from disk and send it to the originator twice.

Still, most of the time the entry is going to be in memory on the owner nodes, so the local load is slower (especially with a shared cache store, where loading is over the network as well).

This has come up on several threads now and I think it's critically wrong, as I commented previously this also introduces many inconsistencies - as far as I understand it. Is there a JIRA for this already? Yes, loading a stale entry from the local cache store is definitely not a good thing, but we actually delete the non-owned entries after the initial state transfer. There may be some consistency issues if one uses a DIST_SYNC cache with a shared async cache store, but fully sync configurations should be fine. OTOH, if the cache store is not shared, the chances of finding the entry in the local store on a non-owner are slim to none, so it doesn't make sense to do the lookup. Implementation-wise, just changing the interceptor order is probably not enough. If the key doesn't exist in the cache, the CacheLoaderInterceptor will still try to load it from the cache store after the remote lookup, so we'll need a marker in the invocation context to avoid the extra cache store load.

Actually, since this is just a performance issue, it could wait until we implement tombstones everywhere.

BTW your gist wouldn't work, the metadata cache needs to load certain elements too. But nice you spotted the need to potentially filter what "preload" means in the scope of each cache, as the metadata one should only preload metadata, while in the original configuration this data would indeed be duplicated. Opened: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2938 Sanne On 19 March 2013 11:51, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On 16 Mar 2013, at 01:19, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > >> Hi Adrian, >> let's forget about Lucene details and focus on DIST. >> With numOwners=1 and having two nodes the entries should be stored >> roughly 50% on each node, I see nothing wrong with that >> considering you don't need data failover in a read-only use case >> having all the index available in the shared CacheLoader. >> >> In such a scenario, and having both nodes preloaded all data, in case >> of a get() operation I would expect >> either: >> A) to be the owner, hence retrieve the value from local in-JVM reference >> B) to not be the owner, so to forward the request to the other node >> having roughly 50% chance per key to be in case A or B. >> >> But when hitting case B) it seems that instead of loading from the >> other node, it hits the CacheLoader to fetch the value. >> >> I already had asked James to verify with 4 nodes and numOwners=2, the >> result is the same so I suggested him to ask here; >> BTW I think numOwners=1 is perfectly valid and should work as with >> numOwners=1, the only reason I asked him to repeat >> the test is that we don't have much tests on the numOwners=1 case and >> I was assuming there might be some (wrong) assumptions >> affecting this. >> >> Note that this is not "just" a critical performance problem but I'm >> also suspecting it could provide inconsistent reads, in two classes of >> problems: >> >> # non-shared CacheStore with stale entries >> If for non-owned keys it will hit the local CacheStore first, where >> you might expect to not find anything, so to forward the request to >> the right node. What if this node has been the owner in the past? It >> might have an old entry locally stored, which would be returned >> instead of the correct value which is owned on a different node. >> >> # shared CacheStore using write-behind >> When using an async CacheStore by definition the content of the >> CacheStore is not trustworthy if you don't check on the owner first >> for entries in memory. >> >> Both seem critical to me, but the performance impact is really bad too. >> >> I hoped to make some more tests myself but couldn't look at this yet, >> any help from the core team would be appreciated. > I think you have a fair point and reads/writes to the data should be coordinated through its owners both for performance and (more importantly) correctness. > Mind creating a JIRA for this? > >> >> @Ray, thanks for mentioning the ClusterCacheLoader. Wasn't there >> someone else with a CacheLoader issue recently who had worked around >> the problem by using a ClusterCacheLoader ? >> Do you remember what the scenario was? >> >> Cheers, >> Sanne >> >> On 15 March 2013 15:44, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> I'm not an expert on InfinispanDirectory but I've noticed in [1] that >>> the lucene-index cache is distributed with numOwners = 1. That means >>> each cache entry is owned by just one cluster node and there's nowhere >>> else to go in the cluster if the key is not available in local memory, >>> thus it needs fetching from the cache store. This can be solved with >>> numOwners > 1. >>> Please let me know if this solves your problem. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> On 03/15/2013 05:03 PM, James Aley wrote: >>>> Hey all, >>>> >>>> <OT> >>>> Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you >>>> all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great >>>> product! >>>> </OT> >>>> >>>> I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment. >>>> We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read >>>> requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of >>>> a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a >>>> cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server). >>>> >>>> The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene >>>> directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are >>>> retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their >>>> local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow. >>>> I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but >>>> from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this >>>> supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader? >>>> >>>> To explain my observations in a little more detail: >>>> * I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config. >>>> Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into >>>> the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration, >>>> where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for >>>> distribution to happen. >>>> * Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM >>>> reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers. >>>> Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems >>>> fine. >>>> * When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following: >>>> - iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the >>>> JVM process. >>>> - no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle) >>>> - memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically, >>>> and stays higher even after the query is finished. >>>> >>>> So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader >>>> to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster. >>>> Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour? >>>> >>>> I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this >>>> made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor >>>> is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor? >>>> I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just >>>> what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I >>>> could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought >>>> relevant in [2]. >>>> >>>> Any advice offered much appreciated. >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> James. >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531 >>>> [2] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > Cheers, > -- > Mircea Markus > Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

> > Implementation-wise, just changing the interceptor order is probably not enough. If the key doesn't exist in the cache, the CacheLoaderInterceptor will still try to load it from the cache store after the remote lookup, so we'll need a marker in the invocation context to avoid the extra cache store load. if the key does't map to the local node it should trigger a remote get to owners (or allow the dist interceptor to do just that) > Actually, since this is just a performance issue, it could wait until we implement tombstones everywhere. Hmm, not sure i see the correlation between this and tombstones? If the key doesn't exist in the cache at all, on any node, then the remote lookup will return null and the CacheLoaderInterceptor will try to load it from the local cache store again (assuming we move CacheLoaderInterceptor after DistributionInterceptor). If DistributionInterceptor put a tombstone in the invocation context for that key, CacheLoaderInterceptor could avoid that extra cache store lookup.

FYI I've created a JIRA to track this: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2950 Whilst quite a performance issues, I don't think that this is an critical/consistency issue for async stores: by using an async store you might loose data (expect inconsistencies) during a node crash anyway, so what this behaviour does is just to increase the inconsistency window. On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:30, Mircea Markus wrote: > > On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:15, Dan Berindei wrote: > >> Hi Sanne >> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: >> Mircea, >> what I was most looking forward was to you comment on the interceptor >> order generated for DIST+cachestores >> - we don't think the ClusteredCacheLoader should be needed at all >> >> Agree, ClusteredCacheLoader should not be necessary. >> >> James, if you're still seeing problems with numOwners=1, could you create an issue in JIRA? >> >> >> - each DIST node is loading from the CacheLoader (any) rather than >> loading from its peer nodes for non-owned entries (!!) >> >> >> Sometimes loading stuff from a local disk is faster than going remote, e.g. if you have numOwners=2 and both owners have to load the same entry from disk and send it to the originator twice. > the staggering of remote gets should overcome that. >> >> Still, most of the time the entry is going to be in memory on the owner nodes, so the local load is slower (especially with a shared cache store, where loading is over the network as well). > +1 >> >> >> This has come up on several threads now and I think it's critically >> wrong, as I commented previously this also introduces many >> inconsistencies - as far as I understand it. >> >> >> Is there a JIRA for this already? >> >> Yes, loading a stale entry from the local cache store is definitely not a good thing, but we actually delete the non-owned entries after the initial state transfer. There may be some consistency issues if one uses a DIST_SYNC cache with a shared async cache store, but fully sync configurations should be fine. >> >> OTOH, if the cache store is not shared, the chances of finding the entry in the local store on a non-owner are slim to none, so it doesn't make sense to do the lookup. >> >> Implementation-wise, just changing the interceptor order is probably not enough. If the key doesn't exist in the cache, the CacheLoaderInterceptor will still try to load it from the cache store after the remote lookup, so we'll need a marker in the invocation context to avoid the extra cache store load. > if the key does't map to the local node it should trigger a remote get to owners (or allow the dist interceptor to do just that) >> Actually, since this is just a performance issue, it could wait until we implement tombstones everywhere. > Hmm, not sure i see the correlation between this and tombstones? > >> >> BTW your gist wouldn't work, the metadata cache needs to load certain >> elements too. But nice you spotted the need to potentially filter what >> "preload" means in the scope of each cache, as the metadata one should >> only preload metadata, while in the original configuration this data >> would indeed be duplicated. >> Opened: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2938 >> >> Sanne >> >> On 19 March 2013 11:51, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> On 16 Mar 2013, at 01:19, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Adrian, >>>> let's forget about Lucene details and focus on DIST. >>>> With numOwners=1 and having two nodes the entries should be stored >>>> roughly 50% on each node, I see nothing wrong with that >>>> considering you don't need data failover in a read-only use case >>>> having all the index available in the shared CacheLoader. >>>> >>>> In such a scenario, and having both nodes preloaded all data, in case >>>> of a get() operation I would expect >>>> either: >>>> A) to be the owner, hence retrieve the value from local in-JVM reference >>>> B) to not be the owner, so to forward the request to the other node >>>> having roughly 50% chance per key to be in case A or B. >>>> >>>> But when hitting case B) it seems that instead of loading from the >>>> other node, it hits the CacheLoader to fetch the value. >>>> >>>> I already had asked James to verify with 4 nodes and numOwners=2, the >>>> result is the same so I suggested him to ask here; >>>> BTW I think numOwners=1 is perfectly valid and should work as with >>>> numOwners=1, the only reason I asked him to repeat >>>> the test is that we don't have much tests on the numOwners=1 case and >>>> I was assuming there might be some (wrong) assumptions >>>> affecting this. >>>> >>>> Note that this is not "just" a critical performance problem but I'm >>>> also suspecting it could provide inconsistent reads, in two classes of >>>> problems: >>>> >>>> # non-shared CacheStore with stale entries >>>> If for non-owned keys it will hit the local CacheStore first, where >>>> you might expect to not find anything, so to forward the request to >>>> the right node. What if this node has been the owner in the past? It >>>> might have an old entry locally stored, which would be returned >>>> instead of the correct value which is owned on a different node. >>>> >>>> # shared CacheStore using write-behind >>>> When using an async CacheStore by definition the content of the >>>> CacheStore is not trustworthy if you don't check on the owner first >>>> for entries in memory. >>>> >>>> Both seem critical to me, but the performance impact is really bad too. >>>> >>>> I hoped to make some more tests myself but couldn't look at this yet, >>>> any help from the core team would be appreciated. >>> I think you have a fair point and reads/writes to the data should be coordinated through its owners both for performance and (more importantly) correctness. >>> Mind creating a JIRA for this? >>> >>>> >>>> @Ray, thanks for mentioning the ClusterCacheLoader. Wasn't there >>>> someone else with a CacheLoader issue recently who had worked around >>>> the problem by using a ClusterCacheLoader ? >>>> Do you remember what the scenario was? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Sanne >>>> >>>> On 15 March 2013 15:44, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> Hi James, >>>>> >>>>> I'm not an expert on InfinispanDirectory but I've noticed in [1] that >>>>> the lucene-index cache is distributed with numOwners = 1. That means >>>>> each cache entry is owned by just one cluster node and there's nowhere >>>>> else to go in the cluster if the key is not available in local memory, >>>>> thus it needs fetching from the cache store. This can be solved with >>>>> numOwners > 1. >>>>> Please let me know if this solves your problem. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers! >>>>> >>>>> On 03/15/2013 05:03 PM, James Aley wrote: >>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>> >>>>>> <OT> >>>>>> Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you >>>>>> all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great >>>>>> product! >>>>>> </OT> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment. >>>>>> We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read >>>>>> requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of >>>>>> a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a >>>>>> cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server). >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene >>>>>> directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are >>>>>> retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their >>>>>> local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow. >>>>>> I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but >>>>>> from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this >>>>>> supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader? >>>>>> >>>>>> To explain my observations in a little more detail: >>>>>> * I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config. >>>>>> Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into >>>>>> the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration, >>>>>> where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for >>>>>> distribution to happen. >>>>>> * Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM >>>>>> reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers. >>>>>> Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems >>>>>> fine. >>>>>> * When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following: >>>>>> - iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the >>>>>> JVM process. >>>>>> - no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle) >>>>>> - memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically, >>>>>> and stays higher even after the query is finished. >>>>>> >>>>>> So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader >>>>>> to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster. >>>>>> Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour? >>>>>> >>>>>> I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this >>>>>> made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor >>>>>> is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor? >>>>>> I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just >>>>>> what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I >>>>>> could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought >>>>>> relevant in [2]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any advice offered much appreciated. >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> James. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531 >>>>>> [2] https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -- >>> Mircea Markus >>> Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > Cheers, > -- > Mircea Markus > Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev