You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ignite.apache.org by "javastuff.sam@gmail.com" <ja...@gmail.com> on 2017/01/05 19:31:51 UTC
Re: Performance with increase in node
Thank you Denis for your reply. Application in client mode can be easy thing
to change, however there will be multiple Ignite nodes to serve bigger size
of cache. So going back to my initial question of degradation with increase
in number of Ignite nodes -
1. Can some one try my test program in order to see what is the problem
here?
2. Is there any tuning needed with increase in Ignite nodes?
-Sam
--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Performance-with-increase-in-node-tp9378p9911.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Performance with increase in node
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
I want to highlight here that the performance degrades with 2 or 3 servers node configuration simply because all the nodes are running locally on a single machine. The nodes have to fight for system resources.
If to run the same benchmark having nodes on different physical machine the numbers will be better.
—
Denis
> On Jan 6, 2017, at 12:53 AM, Nikolai Tikhonov <nt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > 1. Can some one try my test program in order to see what is the problem here?
>
> First, you don't have problem here. :) Second, your benchmark is incorrect. Read the thread on SO for additional information how correct to write benchmark: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/504103/how-do-i-write-a-correct-micro-benchmark-in-java <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/504103/how-do-i-write-a-correct-micro-benchmark-in-java> I've changed test methods: put/get executed 3 times (warmup)
>
> try (IgniteCache<Integer, Integer> cache = ignite.getOrCreateCache(cfg)) {
> put(cache);
> get(cache);
>
> put(cache);
> get(cache);
>
> put(cache);
> get(cache);
> }
>
> and let's see how changing numbers:
>
> One client 2 servers
> >>> Put completed. Took 24928 ms.
> >>> Get completed. Took 13272 ms.
> >>> Put completed. Took 14010 ms.
> >>> Get completed. Took 9331 ms.
> >>> Put completed. Took 13357 ms.
> >>> Get completed. Took 9131 ms.
>
> After this changes I got the following test results:
>
> 1 node:
> >>> Put completed. Took 2042 ms.
> >>> Get completed. Took 399 ms.
>
> 2 nodes:
> >>> Put completed. Took 7791 ms.
> >>> Get completed. Took 4218 ms.
>
> 3 nodes:
> >>> Put completed. Took 10474 ms.
> >>> Get completed. Took 5412 ms.
>
> It's ok for me. When you start one node all changes was made locally (absolutely without network communication), 2 nodes - half of operation will be locally and etc. If we perform operation from client node then we will get the following numbers:
>
> One client and two servers nodes
> >>> Put completed. Took 13357 ms.
> >>> Get completed. Took 9131 ms.
>
> One client and one server node.
> >>> Put completed. Took 12132 ms.
> >>> Get completed. Took 8714 ms.
>
> It shows that we have approximately the same values.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:05 AM, bintisepaha <binti.sepaha@tudor.com <ma...@tudor.com>> wrote:
> Sam, could you post your cache configuration? How many backups do you have?
> What is the marshaller you are using? is there garbage collection happening?
>
> Thanks,
> Binti
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Performance-with-increase-in-node-tp9378p9921.html <http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Performance-with-increase-in-node-tp9378p9921.html>
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Performance with increase in node
Posted by Nikolai Tikhonov <nt...@apache.org>.
Hi,
> 1. Can some one try my test program in order to see what is the problem
here?
First, you don't have problem here. :) Second, your benchmark is incorrect.
Read the thread on SO for additional information how correct to write
benchmark:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/504103/how-do-i-write-a-correct-micro-benchmark-in-java
I've changed test methods: put/get executed 3 times (warmup)
try (IgniteCache<Integer, Integer> cache = ignite.getOrCreateCache(cfg)) {
put(cache);
get(cache);
put(cache);
get(cache);
put(cache);
get(cache);
}
and let's see how changing numbers:
One client 2 servers
>>> Put completed. Took 24928 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 13272 ms.
>>> Put completed. Took 14010 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 9331 ms.
>>> Put completed. Took 13357 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 9131 ms.
After this changes I got the following test results:
1 node:
>>> Put completed. Took 2042 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 399 ms.
2 nodes:
>>> Put completed. Took 7791 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 4218 ms.
3 nodes:
>>> Put completed. Took 10474 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 5412 ms.
It's ok for me. When you start one node all changes was made locally
(absolutely without network communication), 2 nodes - half of operation
will be locally and etc. If we perform operation from client node then we
will get the following numbers:
One client and two servers nodes
>>> Put completed. Took 13357 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 9131 ms.
One client and one server node.
>>> Put completed. Took 12132 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 8714 ms.
It shows that we have approximately the same values.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:05 AM, bintisepaha <bi...@tudor.com> wrote:
> Sam, could you post your cache configuration? How many backups do you have?
> What is the marshaller you are using? is there garbage collection
> happening?
>
> Thanks,
> Binti
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.
> 70518.x6.nabble.com/Performance-with-increase-in-node-tp9378p9921.html
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Performance with increase in node
Posted by bintisepaha <bi...@tudor.com>.
Sam, could you post your cache configuration? How many backups do you have?
What is the marshaller you are using? is there garbage collection happening?
Thanks,
Binti
--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Performance-with-increase-in-node-tp9378p9921.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.