Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Hello, can some one please submit an alternative? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5419.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
I have made all caches Atomic which need to be in transaction. Still the performance is no where near a singke node. I get 2 inserts / sec on a single node now, and around 2000-2500 on a 2 node setup. Is there any thing I can do to increase performance ? I am open to adding to one more node or other thigs to increase throughput -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5358.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Val, Thanks for the tips.But I saw very little gains 4-10%. For a large set of nodes this does provid ebenefit. However we plan to deploy two nodes and then take it from there as demand grows. is there any other way I can imporve what is known in RDBMS terms insert throughput? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5344.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Val, Some of our caches have to REPLICATED , as they are mostly read only caches. I will try Primary_SYNC and try. Regards -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5317.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Hi, Some of your caches are both REPLICATED and FULL_SYNC. This means that each time you update one of these caches, you will send synchronous request to all the nodes, so the latency will almost linearly grow. You can try switching synchronization mode to PRIMARY_SYNC. In this case you will not synchronously wait for backups, but all the nodes will still be updated which will still slow you down, especially under high load when there is a lot of traffic. To achieve the best scalability you should use PARTITIONED caches instead. In this mode you will always update the constant number of nodes (primary + zero or more backups depending on the configuration), regardless of the whole number of nodes in the cluster. Can you try this and let us know if it helps? -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5315.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
I am creating the test cases. I saw that doing inserts increase the latency severely. I have a question does Ignite treat inserts the same as updates ? My isolation level is OPTIMISTIC with serializable -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5274.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Val, Will do that, but meanwhile can I increase performance incresing System Thread pool etc? My machine has CPU and bandwidth limit is still not reached -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5226.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Hi, With a single node without a client, there is no network, so latency is of course lower than when you add network. According to you description, your test is more complicated than code snippets your provided before. So please provide a project that I will be able to run and reproduce the performance drop. In this case I will be able to tell something regarding your particular benchmark. -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5224.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Lastly is there any thread count number to be increased to help in high throughput commit messages...liek does increasing the system threads increase performance? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5222.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Server Node. Disabled Backups. But all changes are SYNCED synchronously. Caches are all partitioned and there are 4 caches. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5199.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Val, Its correct that its so. Hwoever If I add one more node, this adds serious overhead. if I add more threads and start giving more concurrent inputs some transactions start slowing down with some going more than 3 seconds !!!. However I read about affinity key, does it help while inserting data in Ignite...means will it help if all relevant data is affinity key mapped to a single node even while inserting ? May be 2 PC will be discarded and 1 PC will only be used, increasing round trips between nodes and increasing performance? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5193.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
Do you mean that it takes 22 seconds to execute 10 transactions? This means around 0.2ms per transaction, which seems to be good latency. Note that you're executing them synchronously in a single thread, waiting for the network each time. If you need to increase throughput, you should run more threads (and probably more clients) and execute transactions in parallel. -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5187.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
There are too many variables to say if this performance is OK or not without having the code. So please provide the test if you want someone in the community to help you. BTW, 1.6 is released, you can try it: ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5125.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Transaction performance
I will try to. But the code is difficult to replicate for obvious reasons. The cache keys are Long and the values are Java POJO's. There are two nodes running on different systems. There is however a massive amount of concurrent transactions. I saw there is an optimization in Ignite 1.6 RC1 for this/ Will that help? I will also try to replicate the situation. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Transaction-performance-tp5085p5112.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
