Hi Stephen,
Thanks for reply.
We have kept partition count 128 , what will be best value 512 or 1024?.
#########################################
<property name="affinity">
<bean
class="org.apache.ignite.cache.affinity.rendezvous.RendezvousAffinityFunction">
<property name="partitions" value="128"/>
<property name="excludeNeighbors" value="true" />
</bean>
</property>
###############################################
And we have around 500 thick clients connected to cluster, if we increase
partition count will it impact on partition exchange?. Just suspecting
partition exchange may take time and memory consumption will be more at client
side as more partition data need to keep it with. Is it?
Thanks and Regards,
Gangaiah
________________________________
From: Stephen Darlington <[email protected]>
Sent: 04 December 2023 14:58
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [External]Re: RE: Uneven offheap memory distribution among cluster
server nodes
Caution: The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open
attachments or click links unless this email comes from a known sender and you
know the content is safe.
There's a really nice blog on why this is the correct advice:
https://www.gridgain.com/resources/blog/data-distribution-in-apache-ignite
"To achieve optimal key and partition distribution across nodes, it is
important to ensure that the number of partitions is significantly greater than
the number of nodes, and the number of keys is significantly greater than the
number of partitions."
On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 at 17:59, Aleksandr Nikolaev
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
To get a more even distribution of partitions, you should increase their
number.
On 2023/11/17 08:45:30
"Gangaiah.Gundeboina.ril.com<http://Gangaiah.Gundeboina.ril.com> via user"
wrote:
> Any suggestions to improve the distribution.
>
> On 2023/10/18 18:51:43
> "Gangaiah.Gundeboina.ril.com<http://Gangaiah.Gundeboina.ril.com> via user"
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have 8 nodes in cluster, each sever having 2tb size. Could see
offheap memory huge difference among nodes, got to know it's because of
uneven distribution of partitions. We have around 40 caches having set
128 partitions and replication is one for each cache. Below are number
of partitions each sever having for one of the cache including backup
ones. Want to correct the distribution, any suggestions?.
> >
> > Node1: 28
> > Node2: 37
> > Node3: 36
> > Node4: 39
> > Node5: 42
> > Node6: 35
> > Node7: 30
> > Node8: 33
> >
> > [cid:6383480e-22b1-40d4-a789-518471fc8de0]
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gangaiah
> > "Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are
intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).
> > are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient. you are hereby notified that any
> > review. re-transmission. conversion to hard copy. copying.
circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is
> > strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient. please
notify the sender immediately by return email.
> > and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
> >
> > Virus Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable
precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email.
> > The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage
arising from the use of this email or attachment."
> >
> "Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are
intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).
> are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient. you are hereby notified that any
> review. re-transmission. conversion to hard copy. copying.
circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient. please
notify the sender immediately by return email.
> and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
>
> Virus Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions
to ensure no viruses are present in this email.
> The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage
arising from the use of this email or attachment."
>
>
"Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only
for the use of the intended recipient(s).
are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient.
you are hereby notified that any
review. re-transmission. conversion to hard copy. copying. circulation or other
use of this message and any attachments is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient. please notify the
sender immediately by return email.
and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
Virus Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure
no viruses are present in this email.
The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachment."
