Let's make sure though that we have a meaningful default that's not optimized for an edge case. Also, if we use TCP, we can remove UFC from the config, as TCP already performs point-to-point flow control.
On 1/3/13 11:29 AM, Radim Vansa wrote: > 20k credits seems to be the best choice for this test: > > 10k: bad performance > 20k: Average of 2.79 requests / sec (27.87MB / sec), 358.81 ms /request > (prot=UNICAST2) > 30k: Average of 2.52 requests / sec (25.18MB / sec), 397.15 ms /request > (prot=UNICAST2) > 50k: Average of 2.35 requests / sec (23.47MB / sec), 426.10 ms /request > (prot=UNICAST2) > 80k: Average of 1.29 requests / sec (12.94MB / sec), 772.78 ms /request > (prot=UNICAST2) > 200k: bad performance > > (for remembrance: 4 nodes in hyperion, for these results I've set up 8k frag > size) > > I have held dot key for the duration of the test so you can see how long each > apply state took as the dots were inserted into console in constant rate > (lame ascii chart). See attachements. > > Radim > > ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Dan Berindei" <dan.berin...@gmail.com> > | To: "infinispan -Dev List" <infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org> > | Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 8:01:26 AM > | Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default config > | > | > | > | > | This is weird, I would have expected problems with the last message, > | but not in the middle of the sequence (that's why I suggested > | sending only 1 message). Maybe we need an an even lower > | max_credits... > | > | Merry Christmas to you, too! > | > | Dan > | On 21 Dec 2012 16:41, "Radim Vansa" < rva...@redhat.com > wrote: > | > | > | Hi Dan, > | > | I have ran the test on 4 nodes in hyperion (just for the start to see > | how it will behave) but with 100 messages (1 message is nothing for > | a statistician) each 10MB and I see a weird behaviour - there are > | about 5-10 messages received in a fast succession and then the > | nothing is received for several seconds. I experience this behaviour > | for both 200k and 500k credits. Is this really how it should > | perform? > | > | Merry Christmas and tons of snow :) > | > | Radim > | > | <h1>☃</h1> > | > | ----- Original Message ----- > | | From: "Dan Berindei" < dan.berin...@gmail.com > > | | To: "infinispan -Dev List" < infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > > | | Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:57:08 AM > | | Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default config > | | > | | > | | Hi Radim > | | > | | If you run the test with only 2 nodes and FC disabled, it's going > | | to > | | perform even better. But then as you increase the number of nodes, > | | the speed with no FC will drop dramatically (when we didn't have > | | RSVP enabled, with only 3 nodes, it didn't manage to send 1 x 10MB > | | message in 10 minutes). > | | > | | Please run the tests with as many nodes as possible and just 1 > | | message x 10MB. If 500k still performs better, create a JIRA to > | | change the default. > | | > | | Cheers > | | Dan > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Radim Vansa < rva...@redhat.com > > | | wrote: > | | > | | > | | Sorry I haven't specified the amount, I am a stupido... my tests > | | are > | | working with 500k credits. > | | > | | UUPerf (JGroups 3.2.4.Final-redhat-1) from one computer in perflab > | | to > | | another, 2 threads (default), 1000x sends 10MB message (default > | | chunkSize = 10000 * our entry size is usually 1kB) executed 3x > | | > | | 200k: Average of 6.02 requests / sec (60.19MB / sec), 166.13 ms > | | /request (prot=UNICAST2) > | | Average of 5.61 requests / sec (56.09MB / sec), 178.30 ms /request > | | (prot=UNICAST2) > | | Average of 5.49 requests / sec (54.94MB / sec), 182.03 ms /request > | | (prot=UNICAST2) > | | > | | 500k: Average of 7.93 requests / sec (79.34MB / sec), 126.04 ms > | | /request (prot=UNICAST2) > | | Average of 8.18 requests / sec (81.82MB / sec), 122.23 ms /request > | | (prot=UNICAST2) > | | Average of 8.41 requests / sec (84.09MB / sec), 118.92 ms /request > | | (prot=UNICAST2) > | | > | | Can you also reproduce such results? I think that suggests that > | | 500k > | | behaves really better. > | | > | | Radun > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | ----- Original Message ----- > | | | From: "Dan Berindei" < dan.berin...@gmail.com > > | | | To: "infinispan -Dev List" < infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > > | | | Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:43:37 PM > | | | Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default config > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Bela Ban < b...@redhat.com > > | | | wrote: > | | | > | | | > | | | Dan reduced those values to 200K, IIRC it was for UUPerfwhich > | | | behaved > | | | best with 200K. Idon't know if this is still needed. Dan ? > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | I haven't run UUPerf in a while... > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | | On 12/17/12 12:19 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: > | | | > Hi, > | | | > > | | | > recently I have synchronized our jgroups configuration with the > | | | > default one shipped with Infinispan > | | | > (core/src/main/resources/jgroups-(tcp|udp).xml) and it has > | | | > shown > | | | > that 200k credits in UFC/MFC (I keep the two values in sync) is > | | | > not enough even for our smallest resilience test (killing one > | | | > of > | | | > four nodes). The state transfer was often blocked when > | | | > requesting > | | | > for more credits which resulted in not completing it within the > | | | > time limit. > | | | > Therefore, I'd like to suggest to increase the amount of > | | | > credits > | | | > in > | | | > default configuration as well, because we simply cannot use the > | | | > lower setting and it's preferable to have the configurations as > | | | > close as possible. The only settings we need to keep different > | | | > are > | | | > thread pool sizes and addresses and ports. > | | | > > | | | > | | | > | | | What value would you like to use instead? > | | | > | | | Can you try UUPerf with 200k and your proposed configuration and > | | | compare the results? > | | | > | | | Cheers > | | | Dan > | | | > | | | > | | > | | > | | | _______________________________________________ > | | | infinispan-dev mailing list > | | | infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > | | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > | | _______________________________________________ > | | infinispan-dev mailing list > | | infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > | | > | | > | | _______________________________________________ > | | infinispan-dev mailing list > | | infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > | > | _______________________________________________ > | infinispan-dev mailing list > | infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > | _______________________________________________ > | infinispan-dev mailing list > | infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Bela Ban, JGroups lead (http://www.jgroups.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
