ignite-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Coleman, JohnSteven (Agoda)" <JohnSteven.Cole...@agoda.com>
Subject RE: cache update slow
Date Mon, 29 Apr 2019 02:57:25 GMT
Hi,

Thanks for that observation. I increased cache test to 100,000 entries and the average write
time is far better at around 23K wps. It seems like a lot of latency on the first few hundred
writes.

Do you have any benchmarks published?

John

From: Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 7:29 PM
To: user@ignite.apache.org
Subject: Re: cache update slow

Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links nor open attachments!
________________________________
Hello!

I think that comparing steady state benchmarks of multi-million operations versus 500 operations
is misleading.

500 operations is probably not enough to gain full benefits from e.g. JIT.

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


пт, 26 апр. 2019 г. в 12:20, Coleman, JohnSteven (Agoda) <JohnSteven.Coleman@agoda.com<mailto:JohnSteven.Coleman@agoda.com>>:
Hi,

Yes, comparing to DMA is apples and oranges comparison, but gives an idea of the relative
gap in performance.

A better comparison would be to an alike product such as NCache. They claims 20K wps*, thus
20 times faster than my ignite results, but obvs I'd have to compare using my scenario for
a valid comparison. But this is more like the kind of gap in performance I'd expect vs DMA.
But then NCache product is also quite different from ignite, so what to say?

regards,
John

http://www.alachisoft.com/ncache/ncache-performance-benchmarks.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Maxim.Pudov <pudov.max@gmail.com<mailto:pudov.max@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:17 PM
To: user@ignite.apache.org<mailto:user@ignite.apache.org>
Subject: RE: cache update slow

Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links nor open attachments!
________________________________

Glad you met your requirements. I think it is not fair to compare Ignite with direct memory
access, so I can't really say whether this is a good result or not. In your case .net process
starts a java process and communicates with it via JNI [1]. Also Ignite stores cache data
off-heap, which requires serialisation [2].

[1] https://apacheignite-net.readme.io/docs#section-ignite-and-ignitenet
[2] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/durable-memory



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

________________________________
This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may
also be privileged or otherwise protected by copyright or other legal rules. If you have received
it by mistake please let us know by reply email and delete it from your system. It is prohibited
to copy this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any confidentiality or privilege is
not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or unauthorized disclosure of the message. All
messages sent to and from Agoda may be monitored to ensure compliance with company policies,
to protect the company's interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages may
be intercepted, amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses.
Mime
View raw message