Bela, I'm pretty sure these tests use UDP. I'd be really surprised if we could improve TCP performance by lowering max_credits.
We do have a JIRA to change the state transfer behaviour to request state from only a few nodes at a time (perhaps only 1): https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2580. Adrian is working on it ATM, and once it's integrated it would make UUPerf performance largely irrelevant. Even if Adrian's fix doesn't make it into Final, I think a max_credits of only 20k would impact performance in the "stable state" (i.e. what UPerf is testing). So maybe we can find a workaround, like lowering Infinispan's stateTransfer.chunkSize. I wonder if we could automate UPerf and UUPerf, like RadarGun does (or maybe make them RadarGun test scenarios?), so we can gather more data points. At the moment there's a lot of manual work involved in running the tests with all the possible configurations (TCP/UNICAST2, TCP/UNICAST2/UFC, UDP/UNICAST, UDP/UNICAST/UFC, UDP/UNICAST2/UFC, UDP/UNICAST2/UFC/RSVP, each protocol with several tweak-able attributes) and figuring out which configuration is "best". Cheers Dan On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Bela Ban <[email protected]> wrote: > 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" <[email protected]> > > | To: "infinispan -Dev List" <[email protected]> > > | 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" < [email protected] > 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" < [email protected] > > > | | To: "infinispan -Dev List" < [email protected] > > > | | 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 < [email protected] > > > | | 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" < [email protected] > > > | | | To: "infinispan -Dev List" < [email protected] > > > | | | 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 < [email protected] > > > | | | 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 > > | | | [email protected] > > | | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > | | _______________________________________________ > > | | infinispan-dev mailing list > > | | [email protected] > > | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > | | > > | | > > | | _______________________________________________ > > | | infinispan-dev mailing list > > | | [email protected] > > | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > | > > | _______________________________________________ > > | infinispan-dev mailing list > > | [email protected] > > | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > | _______________________________________________ > > | infinispan-dev mailing list > > | [email protected] > > | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > infinispan-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > -- > Bela Ban, JGroups lead (http://www.jgroups.org) > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
