Luca,

It was clear that we can use VMs from the very beginning of the project, and maybe we'll take this approach at last. I've just looked at the Docker's side willing to search more light/reliable alternative.

Thank you again.

Thanks, Dmitry and Luca.

Meanwhile I read some docs and interviewed colleagues who had more experience with Docker than me (while w/o Caché inside). What I've got out of it: Docker doesn't fit well to this very case of mine, which is mostly associated with deployment of already developed app rather than with new development. The reasons are:

- Only one containerized app at the client's server (our case) doesn't mean so many benefits as if it would be several ones;

- Windows issues which Luca already mentioned;

- I completely agree that "data should reside on a host volume..." with only one remark: most likely that all this stuff will be maintained at the client's site by not very well skilled IT personal. It seems that in case of Doker/host volume/etc its configuring will be more complex than rolling up Cache for Windows installation with all possible settings prepared by %Installer based class.

AFAIK, docker encourages to implement microservices. What about classic Cache based app deployment, can docker be useful in this case? By classic I mean the system accessible via several services (ActiveX, TCP sockets, SOAP and REST), multi-tasking, etc with initial 1-2 GB database inside. At the moment I'm to choose a solution to roll up several dozen of rather small systems of such kind. Should I look at docker technology in this very case?

I am bound to ver. 2015.1.4. Host OS most likely will be Windows 2008/2012, while I'd prefer to deploy our system on Linux, that's why I am searching a light solution how to virtualize or containerize it. Thank you!

Mark, may I ask your for some clarification? You wrote:

As a result THP are not used for shared memory, and are only used for each individual process. 

What's a problem here? Shared memory can use "normal" huge pages, meanwhile individual processes - THP. The memory layout on our developers' serber shows that it's possible.

# uname -a

Linux ubtst 4.4.0-59-generic #80-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jan 6 17:47:47 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

# cat /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
[always] madvise never

# tail -11 /proc/meminfo
AnonHugePages:    131072 kB
CmaTotal:              0 kB
CmaFree:               0 kB
HugePages_Total:    1890
HugePages_Free:     1546
HugePages_Rsvd:      898
HugePages_Surp:        0
Hugepagesize:       2048 kB
DirectMap4k:      243808 kB
DirectMap2M:    19580928 kB
DirectMap1G:    49283072 kB

# ccontrol list

Configuration 'CACHE1'
        directory: /opt/cache1
        versionid: 2015.1.4.803.0.16768
        ...
# cat /opt/cache1/mgr/cconsole.log | grep Allocated
...
01/27/17-16:41:57:276 (1425) 0 Allocated 1242MB shared memory using Huge Pages: 1024MB global buffers, 64MB routine buffers

# grep -e AnonHugePages  /proc/*/smaps | awk  '{ if($2>4) print $0} ' |  awk -F "/"  '{print $0; system("ps -fp " $3)} '
...
/proc/165553/smaps:AnonHugePages:      2048 kB
UID         PID   PPID  C STIME TTY          TIME CMD
cacheusr 165553   1524  0 фев07 ?     00:00:00 cache -s/opt/cache1/mgr -cj -p18 SuperServer^%SYS.SERVER
...

You can get an output from a Caché routine provided it do some output to its principal device (= stdout), e.g. (approach #1):

$ csession CACHE "##class(%SYSTEM.License).CKEY()"

Cache Key display:
Based on the active key file '/vol/cachesys/mgr/cache.key'

     LicenseCapacity =   Cache 2017.1 Enterpriser - Concurrent Users:1000000, Anything You Need
     CustomerName =      ZAO XX.XXX
     OrderNumber =       9876543210
     ExpirationDate =    10/15/2114
     AuthorizationKey =  3141592653592718281828662607004081
     MachineID =

     currently available =    9997
     minimum   available =      97
     maximum   available = 1000000
$

as there is no way to pass an arbitrary text from COS routine to OS directly. To bypass it, just incorporate into your shell script a calling sequence like this (approach #2):

#!/bin/bash
csession CACHE <<EOF >output.txt 
write ##class(%SYS.System).InstanceGUID()
halt
EOF

After calling it, you will get output.txt like this:

Node: tdb01.xxxxx.com, Instance: CACHE

USER>
8BCD407E-EE5E-11E4-B9C2-2EAEB3D6024F
USER>

(Missing 'halt' command causes an error). All you have to do is to parse an output. To avoid this, you may want to write a small wrapper in COS that will provide an output as you need it, than you'll be able to follow an approach #1.

HTH.

Isn't it O(k) for PATRICIA tries, where k is an average key length?
E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_tree#Comparison_to_other_data_struct...

Thank you, Timur and other CPM contributors, you are doing the great job.

Freedom and independence are 2 greatest values which you can not buy for money. And you should keep it as long as possible.

This great slogan should be set in stone and cast in steel! Meanwhile, your (potential) target audience could be wider prefer you building FOSS product keeping proprietary COS/Caché features usage minimized and localized as much as possible.

While we at SP.ARM would hardly drop our home-brewed PM as it is pretty well integrated with our flagship product (qMS), personally I appreciate emerging of CPM and wonder why it is not CMPM?

Class methods calls "decorating" with macros seems to be possible using #def1arg macros.

But how to automate the substutitution of all flavors of an instance method calls to macros in a real world project? The method calls may use different <oref> variables in different parts of a project, or even use ".." or $this:
 set res=oref.Method1(x,y,.z)
 do Ref.Method1(x,y)
 if ..Method1(x,,.z) { ... }
 set a=$this.Method1(x,y)

So we need to define a macro with at least two arguments: 1) for oref, 2) for all other method's arguments. Having no variable macro arguments list, how to achieve it?

Note: we discussed direct calls only; taking in account $method() and indirection (@, Xecute), the situation would be even worse.

Dynamic dispatch is a hit on speed anyway.

Sounds like yet another reason not to use it in production code.

Macros can help in many cases but using $method() and other flavors of indirect method calls.

Always call "do a.AmethodName()"

I don't think it's a good idea as each extra nested call inevitably introduces extra performance drawback.

Anyway, imagine an existing large app with 100x classes and 1000x of methods calls, some of which can be done indirectly. In most common case an ability to do such transformation (all a.m() to a.Am()) sounds unrealistic, while your approach may fit small projects with simple calling conventions, especially when they are being started from scratch.

My answer would be simple: monitor your database growth and do the same on global level. It can help to estimate the future growth and with some luck even to point out inefficient solutions that may waste the space. 

E.g. we have a task that calculates all globals sizes (usually once a night) and store this data in a global that can be used as a source for visualization and allerting by means of some external toolset. At the moment integration with Zabbix is implemented.

 set mbSize=$$AllocatedSize^%GSIZE($Name(@Gref))/1048576 // Global @Gref size in MegaBytes

Pros:
- uses proven calculation algorithm, the same as interactive %GSIZE utility uses (we met errors in %GlobalEdit::GetGlobalSizeBySubscript() calculation, while it was in "rather old" v.2015.1.2, not sure about 2017.1);
- supports the whole global (Gref="^A") as well as its parts (Gref=$name(^A("subs1") or Gref=$name(^A("subs1","subs2")) or ...) as arguments.
Con(s):
- allows to perform only quick global size estimation, while in most cases it's quite enough;
- presize (slow) version can also be derived from %GSIZE source, but it's more tricky exercise...

It seems to be pretty peculiar case, at least for me. Sounds like Cache is supplied with English Unicode locale which does not support all unicode characters. What for?