Dan & Radim, Thanks! I have attempted to disable storeAsBinary with the followed infinispan configurations, but the results don't show much differences.
<infinispan xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:infinispan:config:7.0 http://www.infinispan.org/schemas/infinispan-config-7.0.xsd" xmlns="urn:infinispan:config:7.0"> - <jgroups> <stack-file name="udp" path="jgroups.xml" /> </jgroups> - <cache-container default-cache="default"> <transport stack="udp" node-name="${nodeName}" /> <replicated-cache name="repl" mode="SYNC" /> <distributed-cache name="dist" mode="SYNC" owners="1" > <store-as-binary keys="false" values="false" /> </distributed-cache> </cache-container> </infinispan> The infinispan configurations utilized by the previous experiments is: <infinispan xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:infinispan:config:7.0 http://www.infinispan.org/schemas/infinispan-config-7.0.xsd" xmlns="urn:infinispan:config:7.0"> - <jgroups> <stack-file name="udp" path="jgroups.xml" /> </jgroups> - <cache-container default-cache="default"> <transport stack="udp" node-name="${nodeName}" /> <replicated-cache name="repl" mode="SYNC" /> <local-cache name="local" /> <distributed-cache name="dist" mode="SYNC" owners="1" /> </cache-container> </infinispan> Best Regards, JR > -----Original Message----- > From: infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org > [mailto:infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Dan Berindei > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 11:44 PM > To: infinispan -Dev List > Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Performance gap between different value sizes > and > between key loactions > > JR, could you share your test, or at least the configuration you used and what > key/value types you used? > > Like Radim said, in your 1+0 scenario with storeAsBinary disabled and no cache > store attached, I would expect the latency to be exactly the same for all > value > sizes. > > Cheers > Dan > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi JR, > > > > thanks for those findings! I was benchmarking the dependency of > > achieved throughput based on entry size in the past, and I found the > > sweet spot on 8k values (likely because our machines had 9k MTU). > > Regrettably, we were focusing on throughput rather than on latency. > > > > I think that the increased latency could be on the account of: > > a) marshalling - this is the top suspect > > b) when receiving the data from network (in JGroups), those are copied > > from the socket to buffer > > c) general GC activity - with larger data flow you're about to trigger > > GC sooner > > > > Though, I am quite surprised by such linear scaling, usually RPC > > latency or waiting for locks is the villain. Unless you set in cache > > configuration to storeAsBinary, Infinispan treats values as references > > and there should be no overhead involved. > > > > Could you set up sampling mode profiler and check what it reports? All > > the above are just slightly educated guesses. > > > > Radim > > > > On 12/15/2014 01:54 PM, linjunru wrote: > >> > >> Hi, all: > >> > >> I have tested infinispan in distributed mode in terms of latency of > >> put(k,v) operation. The own_num is 1 and the key we put/write locates > >> in the same node as the put operation occurs(In the table,“1+0” > >> represents this scenario), the results indicates that the latency > >> increases as the size of the value increases. However the increments > >> seem to be a little “unreasonable” to me, because the bandwidth of > >> the memory system is quite huge, and the number of keys (10000) > >> remains the same during the experiment. So, here is the questions: > >> which operations inside infinspan have strong relatives with the size > >> of value, and why they costs so much as the size increases? > >> > >> We have also tested infinispan in the scenario which the key and the > >> put/write(key,value) operation reside in different nodes(we noted it > >> as “0+1”). Compared with “1+0”, “0+1” triggers network > >> communications, however, the network latency is much smaller compared > >> to the performance gas between the two scenarios. Why this situation > happens? > >> For example, with a 25K bytes ping packet, the RTT is about 0.713ms > >> while performance gas between the two scenarios is about 8.4ms,what > >> operations inside infinispan used the other 7.6ms? > >> > >> UDP is utilized as the transport protocol, the infinispan version we > >> used is 7.0 and there are 4 nodes in the cluster, each has 10000 > >> keys, all of them have memory bigger than 32G, and all of them have > >> xeon cpu > >> e5-2407 x2. > >> > >> Value size > >> > >> > >> > >> 250B( us) > >> > >> > >> > >> 2.5K( us) > >> > >> > >> > >> 25k(us) > >> > >> > >> > >> 250k(us) > >> > >> > >> > >> 2.5M(us) > >> > >> > >> > >> 25M(us) > >> > >> 1+0 > >> > >> > >> > >> 463 > >> > >> > >> > >> 726 > >> > >> > >> > >> 3 236 > >> > >> > >> > >> 26 560 > >> > >> > >> > >> 354 454 > >> > >> > >> > >> 3 979 830 > >> > >> 0+1 > >> > >> > >> > >> 1 807 > >> > >> > >> > >> 2 829 > >> > >> > >> > >> 11 635 > >> > >> > >> > >> 87 540 > >> > >> > >> > >> 1 035 133 > >> > >> > >> > >> 11 653 389 > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> JR > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> infinispan-dev mailing list > >> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > > > > > -- > > Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> > > JBoss DataGrid QA > > > > _______________________________________________ > > infinispan-dev mailing list > > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
jgroups.xml
Description: jgroups.xml
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev