Il mer 20 giu 2018, 16:52 Sijie Guo <[email protected]> ha scritto: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:09 AM Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> I am experimenting DBLedgerStorage with some project. >> With my workloads I don't see much benefit, or sometimes a performance >> degradation, >> > > Do you have a performance comparison? Or can you describe what have you > observed? >
No real 'sharable' numbers, just run a bunch of benchmarks of one application. My data has no real meaning. > >> just by keeping the same bookie and application configuration (just >> switching the storage manager classe name in the bookie configuration). >> >> Which is the expected workload for DBLedgerStorage ? >> (Usually I am using the default SortedLedgerStorage) >> > > Ideally it should be working out better when you have large number of > ledgers per bookie (let's say more than 10k ledgers). > My test created only a few ledger ( less then 10) so maybe this is why I see no benefit. As far as I understand RocksDB is used for indexes and maybe with a few ledgers the overhead is greater than the gain in term of resource saving. I have to tune my test with more concurrency. In this project I will have concurrent readers and writers, but readers will access data at any point of ledgers, so no usual 'tailing reads'. I will be using ledgers more likes files than like streams. So having rocks db to store offsets seems a very good chance for me. In real systems I will have thousands of active ledgers per bookie. I have to use a more complex suite of benchmarks for the use case. I will be back with more interesting comparisons Thank you Enrico > >> >> Cheers >> Enrico >> >> >> >> -- -- Enrico Olivelli
