On 1/19/12 11:45 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > On 19 January 2012 09:59, Bela Ban<b...@redhat.com> wrote: >> It would be interesting to see the numbers with bbc128, which makes >> sending a bit faster. I'd expect to see more writes and less reads, >> compared to their relative numbers. > > Ok, done. This is the same Infinispan build, but using JGroups bbc128: > > Done 880,969,860 transactional operations in 24.71 minutes using > 5.1.0-SNAPSHOT > 875,033,689 reads and 5,936,171 writes > Reads / second: 590,216 > Writes/ second: 4,003
OK, thanks. Not as dramatic though as the change in 23a031e... > Looks like a bit slower - confirming the figures I had two days ago. > Anyway my purpose with the comparison was just to proof the latest > patches in Infinispan where going in the correct direction, so I'm > intentionally not changing JGroups versions yet. > >> BTW: I'm done with my implementation of Table, and the numbers look >> really impressive ! It is about the same as RingBuffer for smaller >> insertions (5 million), but for 50 million the number stays about the >> same (insertions and removals per second). For smaller numbers, Table is >> ca 4 times *faster* than NakReceiverWindow. >> >> I still want to add more tests for Table (copy and convert the ones for >> RingBuffer), and then switch NAKACK2 over from RingBuffer to Table. I'm >> very curious to see the perf numbers after that change ! >> >> Next comes passing up of entire bundles, this should also make a big >> difference ! >> Exiting times, cheers ! > > If you commit it on an experimental branch, I'll give it a preview run .. The branch is JGRP-1396-2, the class is Table. There is a stress test called TableStressTest (you can compare it to NakReceiverWindowStressTest and RingBufferStressTest). -- Bela Ban Lead JGroups (http://www.jgroups.org) JBoss / Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev