ignite-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kobe <...@mailcity.com>
Subject Re: Blob persistence performance: IGFS vs Oracle
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:42:12 GMT
Thanks for your suggestion. I did not follow this:

 "For this use-case I would suggest using single cache puts (the same way
you
  insert data to Oracle) and combine it with write-behind store writing to
  HDFS, this should give you better latencies."

Are you suggesting not using IGFS and using Ignite cache directly with a
write-behind store?
May I use a regular file system as a write behind with Ignite cache?

  >If you still want to proceed with IGFS, I would try increasing IGFS file
  >block size, see FileSystemConfiguration#blockSize.

What is the default block size of IGFS? I could not find it on Javadoc.

Also, I am persisting in IGFS as follows:

      *  IgniteFileSystem fs;
        IgfsPath path;
        byte[] data;
        //...
      
        try (OutputStream out = fs.create(path, true)) { out.write(data); }
*
If I used buffered I/O could I see significant drop in latency?

thanx,

/Kobe




alexey.goncharuk wrote
> Kobe,
> 
> I am not sure this is a fair comparison because writing a file to IGFS
> involves 3 operations: updating the metadata cache (empty file creation),
> actual file writing and then updating the metadata cache again (update the
> file size).
> For this use-case I would suggest using single cache puts (the same way
> you
> insert data to Oracle) and combine it with write-behind store writing to
> HDFS, this should give you better latencies.
> 
> If you still want to proceed with IGFS, I would try increasing IGFS file
> block size, see FileSystemConfiguration#blockSize.





--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Blob-persistence-performance-IGFS-vs-Oracle-tp3174p3179.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message