Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45770200BA6 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 03:55:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 440E2160AE5; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 01:55:03 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id B0A36160ADC for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 03:55:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 18138 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2016 01:55:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@ignite.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@ignite.apache.org Received: (qmail 18128 invoked by uid 99); 4 Oct 2016 01:55:01 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 01:55:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7DB861A78C5 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 01:55:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.173 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hv3OOIPPFAtU for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 01:54:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mbob.nabble.com (mbob.nabble.com [162.253.133.15]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id D9D635F19D for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 01:54:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static.162.255.23.37.macminivault.com (unknown [162.255.23.37]) by mbob.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D3432C320A for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:54:57 -0700 (MST) From: vkulichenko To: user@ignite.apache.org Message-ID: <1475546097122-8071.post@n6.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1475541601714-8069.post@n6.nabble.com> References: <1475541601714-8069.post@n6.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Performance issues with Ignite L2 cache compared to ehcache MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 01:55:03 -0000 Hi, If you compare local ehcache and distributed Ignite, then it's not really fair. Ignite gives you the biggest improvement when you need to scale out and fit more data in memory than one computer allows. If memory of one node is enough for you, start with a single server node embedded into the application and measure performance. -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Performance-issues-with-Ignite-L2-cache-compared-to-ehcache-tp8069p8071.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.