Re: Disk Persistence Performance

Milliseconds for sure, we can't beat the physics ;) -- Denis On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:02 AM, piyush wrote: > Thanks for relevant links. > > Just to be clear, When you say disk latency is (20 - 500 ms) did you mean > microsecond or millisecond ? > > > > -- > Sent

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

Thanks for relevant links. Just to be clear, When you say disk latency is (20 - 500 ms) did you mean microsecond or millisecond ? -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

> > Are there any benchmarks around how fast is disk KV store which comes bundled > as part of Ignite? Ignite community uses these benchmarks to measure Ignite persistence performance on a daily basis: https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/perfomance-benchmarking It's against ASF policy to

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

Thanks Denis. In my application I intend to allocated upto 25% of Data in RAM and rest (75%) on disk. Benchmark link given showcases data fetched from RAM. Are there any benchmarks around how fast is disk KV store which comes bundled as part of Ignite ? What's the average latency value we can

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

Hi, That's an answer to the question of how much Ignite with the persistence enabled is faster than other NoSQL databases: https://www.gridgain.com/resources/blog/apacher-ignitetm-and-apacher-cassandratm-benchmarks-power-in-memory-computing I didnt know we could define multiple data regions and

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

Thanks Stanislav. I didnt know we could define multiple data regions and attach them to different cache region. Can you give a short an example for it or perhaps link for Document/blog which does the same ? -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

> Cache is based on hit or miss ratio or simple LRU LRU > But as I mentioned in point #3 there might be services which hit multiple > times but good latency is not the requirement. I dont want cache to evict > any records when querying to such few Tables. What you could do in this case is

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

Cache is based on hit or miss ratio or simple LRU But as I mentioned in point #3 there might be services which hit multiple times but good latency is not the requirement. I dont want cache to evict any records when querying to such few Tables. -- Sent from:

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

Ignite will take care of evicting the data from memory itself. The hot data will be in the memory, and the rarely accessed data will be loaded on demand. Other words, rarely accessed data will not occupy memory space all the time. Thanks, Stan -- Sent from:

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

Thanks Stanislav. About the use case of certain tables to be Disk only is that: 1. OLAP Report queries on Tables for which access patterns are rare or time bound and minimum e.g. creating management report from my web application 2. Materialized view tables which are created by listening to

Re: Disk Persistence Performance

> Curious to know How fast is Disk KV persistence ? since Ignite iterates over all keys and indexes to do the computation. Is Disk KV persistence is as efficient as in other stable NoSQL database like Cassandra ? > Does the number of partitions helps in better key lookup access from Disk > ? >

Disk Persistence Performance

In my case, config of application will be1. 3 Nodes with 24GB RAM and up to 1TB of disk data 2. Ignite is embedded in Java web application server 3. Azul Zing JVM with on heap Ignite cache of 16GB4. 100mbps network speed or better5. each node will have to serve at least 10K req/sec. each request