We are analyzing ignite to use it in .NET platform, In Ignite document we can see there is some limitation on running cluster in Java and Thin Client in .NET. The list provided in the document doesn't mention about "Data Streaming". So would like to know whether "Data Streaming" is supported in "Mixed-Platform" or not ?
Yes, Data Streaming is supported in mixed-platform clusters, and you can do it from Ignite.NET Thin Client without any limitations.
P.S. The document is slightly outdated (fix on the way), Services are also supported in this scenario, you can make Java <-> .NET service calls in both directions, which some customers use extensively:
https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/net-specific/net-java-services-execution
Related
Am reading people having trouble with using rediscache in azure functions on consumption plan.
please advise best practice for using caching in azure functions 2.0
my rediscache will be used by api's as well as azure functions (consumption plan). since connection object is supposed to be singleton and reused in case of functions on every request it will create new connection will this create problems ?
Please be aware of the various limitations for Azure Redis Cache performance per pricing tier, especially SSL and Non-SSL connections per second. Please also be aware of the benefits + behaviors of using the StackExchange.Redis configuration options.
The C# IgniteSessionStateStoreProvider appears to be launching an entire instance of a JVM in-process in order to run a ignite node. I was wondering if it would be feasible to create a lightweight provider that talks to the cluster nodes, but that isn't a full node itself, i.e. doesn't require an in-process JVM.
By feasible I mean is there some fundamental architectural reason why there can't be a lightweight/thin provider?
is there some fundamental architectural reason why there can't be a lightweight/thin provider
We just used Ignite.NET API to create the provider, and that API starts a JVM in process. Advantage is this works very fast.
Thin client mode is coming in Ignite.NET 2.4 (expected in January). I've filed a ticket to add thin session store: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7269
I would like to know are there feature wise same or different? Could you also mention any pros and cons about both of these? Also please mention real-world use case for both Embedded BrokerService vs installed ActiveMQ broker. Thanks in advance!
ActiveMQ is just a Java application, and the embedded version offers essentially the same features as the stand-alone version. In fact, you can configure an embedded broker to take its configuration from an XML file, in which case it will look very similar to the stand-alone broker.
Embedding a broker is a reasonable thing to do if you need the benefit of programmatic configuration; that is, you want to configure things according to rules which are hard to implement in an XML file. It also makes sense if you want close-coupled operation between the broker and the application components, with message data being passed in memory. This might be the situation if you're using JMS as an inter-module communication mechanism within the application.
Embedding a broker has the disadvantage -- and it can be a profound one -- of making it difficult to disentangle problems in the broker from problems in your application. Figuring out the cause of, say, runaway memory consumption could be very difficult. You can get commercial support for ActiveMQ, should you need it, but it will be hard for any commercial organization to support a hybrid broker+application installation.
Why do Apache Hive needs Apache Thrift? On the Thrift's site it says that it can compile in multiple languages, but I can't understand where does it fits and why do Hive need it.
Thanks
Cited from safaribooksonline:
Chapter 16. Hive Thrift Service
Hive has an optional component known as HiveServer or HiveThrift that
allows access to Hive over a single port. Thrift is a software
framework for scalable cross-language services development. See
http://thrift.apache.org/ for more details. Thrift allows clients
using languages including Java, C++, Ruby, and many others, to
programmatically access Hive remotely.
The CLI is the most common way to access Hive. However, the design of
the CLI can make it difficult to use programmatically. The CLI is a
fat client; it requires a local copy of all the Hive components and
configuration as well as a copy of a Hadoop client and its
configuration. Additionally, it works as an HDFS client, a MapReduce
client, and a JDBC client (to access the metastore). Even with the
proper client installation, having all of the correct network access
can be difficult, especially across subnets or datacenters.
Couldn't have said it better. Emphasis mine.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/HiveServer
HiveServer is an optional service that allows a remote client to submit requests to Hive, using a variety of programming languages, and retrieve results. HiveServer is built on Apache ThriftTM (http://thrift.apache.org/), therefore it is sometimes called the Thrift server although this can lead to confusion because a newer service named HiveServer2 is also built on Thrift.
For more details on how to connect to hive server(thrift server) see the link above.
We are working on developing a Java EE based application. Our application is Java 1.5 compatible and will be deployed to WAS ND 6.1.0.21 with EBJ 3.0 and Web Services feature packs. The configuration is currently one cell with two clusters. Each cluster will have two nodes.
Our application, or our system, as I should rather say, comes in two or three parts.
Part 1: An ear deployed to one cluster that contains 3rd party vendor code combined with customization code. Their code is EJB 2.0 compliant and has a lot of Remote Home interfaces.
Part 2: An ear deployed to the same cluster as the first ear. This ear contains EBJ 3's that make calls into the EJB 2's supplied by the vendor and the custom code. These EJB 3's are used by the JSF UI also packaged with the EAR, and some of them are also exposed as web services (JAX-WS 2.0 with SOAP 1.2 compliance) for other clients.
Part 3: There may be other services that do not depend on our vendor/custom code app. These services will be EJB 3.0's and web services that are deployed to the other cluster.
Per a recommendation from some IBM staff on site here, communication between nodes in a cluster can be EJB RMI. But if we are going across clusters and/or other cells, then the communication should be web services.
That said, some of us are wondering about performance and optimizing communication for speed of our applications that will use our web services and EJB's. Right now most EJB's are exposed as remote. (and our vendor set theirs up that way, rather than also exposing local home interfaces). We are wondering if WAS does any optimizations between apps in the same node/cluster node space. If two apps are installed in the same area and they call each other via remote home interface, is WAS smart enough to make it a local home interface call?
Are their other optimization techniques? Should we consider them? Should we not? What are the costs/benefits? Here is the question from one of our team members as sent in their email:
The question is: Supposing we develop our EJBs as remote EJBs, where our UI controller code is talking to our EXT java services via EJB3...what are our options for performance optimization when both the EJB server and client are running in the same container?
As one point of reference, google has given me some oooooold websphere performance tuning documentation from 2000 that explains a tuning configuration you can set to enable Call By Reference for EJB communication when they're in the same application server JVM. It states the following:
Because EJBs are inherently location independent, they use a remote programming
model. Method parameters and return values are serialized over RMI-IIOP and returned
by value. This is the intrinsic RMI "Call By Value" model.
WebSphere provides the "No Local Copies" performance optimization for running EJBs
and clients (typically servlets) in the same application server JVM. The "No Local
Copies" option uses "Call By Reference" and does not create local proxies for called
objects when both the client and the remote object are in the same process. Depending
on your workload, this can result in a significant overhead savings.
Configure "No Local Copies" by adding the following two command line parameters to
the application server JVM:
* -Djavax.rmi.CORBA.UtilClass=com.ibm.CORBA.iiop.Util
* -Dcom.ibm.CORBA.iiop.noLocalCopies=true
CAUTION: The "No Local Copies" configuration option improves performance by
changing "Call By Value" to "Call By Reference" for clients and EJBs in the same JVM.
One side effect of this is that the Java object derived (non-primitive) method parameters
can actually be changed by the called enterprise bean. Consider Figure 16a:
Also, we will also be using Process Server 6.2 and WESB 6.2 as well in the future. Any ideas? recommendations?
Thanks
The only automatic optimization that can really be done for remote EJBs is if they are colocated (accessed from within the same JVM). In that case, the ORB will short-circuit some of the work that would otherwise be required if the request needed to go across the wire. There will still be some necessary ORB overhead including object serialization (unless you turn on noLocalCopies, with all the caveats it brings).
Alternatively, if you know that the UI controller is colocated, your method calls do not rely on parameter or return value copying, and your interface does not rely on the exception differences between local and remote views, then you could create and expose a local subinterface that will be much faster than remote access through the ORB.