Impressive! I am focused on the performance issue of ShardingSphere for a long time, and have done a little saga work before. But I still can't understand why saga Tx faster than No Tx. Is there something I missed?
BTW, I noticed that second nice machine, and wonder what's the load and memory usage on it when testing. 新道场开张了 <tsubasa...@qq.com> 于2018年12月24日周一 下午6:28写道： > Hi, everyone. > > > The feature of saga transaction in ShardingSphere has been basically > completed > by integrating servicecomb-saga-actuator. > Recently, we used Sharding-JDBC to test the performance of Saga > transactions. > > > There are results for two kinds of environments. > > > First result comes from local environment which including 2 cores and 16G > RAM > The connection pool size, thread pool size of saga-actuator and thread > pool size of Sharding-JDBC all are 50. > > > ---------------- result for local environment ---------------- > |Tx Type|Thread Number|Average response(ms)| TPS | > | No Tx | 50 | 337 | 140 | > | saga | 50 | 395 | 120 | > | local | 50 | 323 |143| > | xa | 50 | 301 |154| > | No Tx | 100 | 605 | 158 | > | saga | 100 | 789 | 120 | > > ---------------- result for local environment ---------------- > > > Second result comes from test environment which 256cores and 300+G RAM > The connection pool size, thread pool size of saga-actuator and thread > pool size of Sharding-JDBC all are 200. > > > ---------------- result for test environment ---------------- > |Tx Type|Thread Number|Average response(ms)| TPS | > | No Tx | 200 | 95 |2002| > | saga | 200 | 351 |1700| > > | local | 200 | 64 |2868| > | xa | 200 | 98 |2012| > ---------------- result for test environment ---------------- > > > And I do echo test with emptyTransport which do not execute SQL in saga, > the result is TPS 457 in local and 3200 in test environment. > > > if saga do persistence to log file, the TPS of saga will nose dive to 70 > in local and 600+ in test environment -- Zhang Yonglun Apache ShardingSphere
