Re: Ignite Write Behind + .NET + External Cache Store
1. Write-behind mode invokes cache store in background, so there is no simple way to confirm if a particular write (cache put) has been persisted, no matter how many backups. 2. AFAIK, cache store is only invoked on the primary node for the given key On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 5:04 PM wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > > > Under Write Behind = true setting does Ignite will try to save > data from backup node( partition) if lets say one node crashes while > writing into external cache store? Document says if node crashes > then some data can be lost from saving into external cache store > but what if we set Backup =1 and WriteSynchronizationMode as Full > Sync? Will the data get written to cache store from backup node? > > > > Regards > > Satyajit > > > > > > > > Restricted - External > > Barclays Execution Services Limited registered in England. Registered No. > 1767980. Registered office: 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP > > Barclays Execution Services Limited provides support and administrative > services across Barclays group. Barclays Execution Services Limited is an > appointed representative of Barclays Bank UK plc, Barclays Bank plc and > Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. Barclays Bank UK plc and Barclays > Bank plc are authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and > regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation > Authority. Clydesdale Financial Services Limited is authorised and > regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. > > This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for > the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under > applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this email > in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete it and any > attachments from your system. Do not copy, use, disclose or otherwise act > on any part of this email or its attachments. > > Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. The > Barclays group does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from > unauthorised access to, or interference with, any internet communications > by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. Replies to > this email may be monitored by the Barclays group for operational or > business reasons. > > Any opinion or other information in this email or its attachments that > does not relate to the business of the Barclays group is personal to the > sender and is not given or endorsed by the Barclays group. > > Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail is not an offer to buy or sell > or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities, investment products or > other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any > transaction, or an official statement of Barclays. >
Ignite Write Behind + .NET + External Cache Store
Hi Pavel, Under Write Behind = true setting does Ignite will try to save data from backup node( partition) if lets say one node crashes while writing into external cache store? Document says if node crashes then some data can be lost from saving into external cache store but what if we set Backup =1 and WriteSynchronizationMode as Full Sync? Will the data get written to cache store from backup node? Regards Satyajit Restricted - External Barclays Execution Services Limited registered in England. Registered No. 1767980. Registered office: 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP Barclays Execution Services Limited provides support and administrative services across Barclays group. Barclays Execution Services Limited is an appointed representative of Barclays Bank UK plc, Barclays Bank plc and Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. Barclays Bank UK plc and Barclays Bank plc are authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Clydesdale Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this email in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete it and any attachments from your system. Do not copy, use, disclose or otherwise act on any part of this email or its attachments. Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. The Barclays group does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays group for operational or business reasons. Any opinion or other information in this email or its attachments that does not relate to the business of the Barclays group is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by the Barclays group. Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail is not an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities, investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Barclays.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
We use it to conservative 2 now in our current setting -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5549.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
Thanks for that. we were setting flushsize to 0. how about flush thread count? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5541.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
I did test this...For us I think Write behind gets called fine. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5475.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
amitpa, We would be interested in learning how did this perform for you? We have implemented spring txn to insert in database for write-behind. Hoever, we see that sometiems write-behind is not even called for some objects that we are certain were just updated in the cache. have you noticed that? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5470.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
Thanks we are considering implementing JDBC batch inserts -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5418.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
Ignite _does_ use a separate thread pool to persist data in write-behind mode, this is the essential difference between write-through and write-behind. However, if your cache load rate is significantly higher than the database insert rate, the write queue will grow faster than background threads can flush data, so eventually you will get an OOME. In this situation you can - block and wait until there is some space in the write queue - persist your own data synchronously Ignite choses the second option and writes transaction data synchronously. As Denis pointer out, you should tune write-behind parameters to make sure that background threads are working at sufficient insert rate. Also make sure that you use batched inserts in your CacheStore implementation. Hope this helps, AG 2016-06-03 10:26 GMT-07:00 amitpa <ami...@nrifintech.com>: > I understood this perfectly. > > What I mean is :- > > Shouldnt the write behind use a separete thread pool so that slow write > behind process does not impact the whole grid ? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5412.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
I understood this perfectly. What I mean is :- Shouldnt the write behind use a separete thread pool so that slow write behind process does not impact the whole grid ? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5412.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
As I explained in the situation when the write-behind queue is full a Thread that updates a cache and propagates the changes into the write-behind store can be used to flush the write-behind queue since the queue is full. This situation can affect the performance especially if this happens too often. — Denis > On Jun 3, 2016, at 11:30 AM, amitpa <ami...@nrifintech.com> wrote: > > Danis, > > Thanks. I am trying that. > > However shouldnt the write behinds not impact the GRID performance at all. > Since we are writing in write behin dmode to avoid the cost of slow disk IO. > I understand that theres a limit, but shouldnt this thread pool be different > if technically possible, allowing ignite to continue processing in case of > slow write behind performance. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5400.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
Danis, Thanks. I am trying that. However shouldnt the write behinds not impact the GRID performance at all. Since we are writing in write behin dmode to avoid the cost of slow disk IO. I understand that theres a limit, but shouldnt this thread pool be different if technically possible, allowing ignite to continue processing in case of slow write behind performance. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385p5400.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite Write Behind performance
Hi, Most likely your write-behind Threads can’t keep up with volume of data that is aggregated in the write-behind buffer and you get with the situation when from time to time writing to the DB is performed in the sync mode from system Thread(s). I would suggest you playing with the following write-behind configuration to avoid the situation above: - CacheConfiguration.setWriteBehindFlushSize - increase size of the write-behind buffer; - CacheConfiguration.setWriteBehindFlushThreadCount; - CacheConfiguration.setWriteBehindFlushFrequence - decrease this value triggering the flushing more frequently. Default value is 5 seconds. — Denis > On Jun 2, 2016, at 7:23 PM, amitpa <ami...@nrifintech.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > I am struggling with improving ignite transaction performance. However this > is another problem > > However if I am doing write behind and the writes are slow, I am seeing that > the over all performance of teh grid drops. > > Is there any configuration that I can do to make ignite performance stable > even when the writes are being slow in write behind (due to slow DB) > > Currently I have 10 threads in write behind mode. > > What should be my system threadpool size assuming I have two caches which > participate in transactions and 2 nodes in 10G network. > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ignite Write Behind performance
Hello, I am struggling with improving ignite transaction performance. However this is another problem However if I am doing write behind and the writes are slow, I am seeing that the over all performance of teh grid drops. Is there any configuration that I can do to make ignite performance stable even when the writes are being slow in write behind (due to slow DB) Currently I have 10 threads in write behind mode. What should be my system threadpool size assuming I have two caches which participate in transactions and 2 nodes in 10G network. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-Write-Behind-performance-tp5385.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite WRite Behind
does write behind work without this setting :- cacheCfg.setWriteSynchronizationMode(CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_ASYNC); Here is my cache setting :- cacheCfg.setReadThrough(true); cacheCfg.setWriteThrough(true); cacheCfg.setWriteBehindEnabled(true); cacheCfg.setWriteBehindFlushThreadCount(1); cacheCfg.setAtomicityMode(TRANSACTIONAL); cacheCfg.setMemoryMode(CacheMemoryMode.OFFHEAP_TIERED); cacheCfg.setCacheMode(CacheMode.PARTITIONED); cacheCfg.setBackups(0); cacheCfg.setSwapEnabled(false); cacheCfg.setWriteBehindFlushFrequency(5000); cacheCfg.setOffHeapMaxMemory(0); Do I need to add something to it? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-WRite-Behind-tp4741p4797.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite WRite Behind
I undrestand that WriteAll will be called per cache. But my undrestanding is this :- 1) There are two configs for write behind 1) No of Entries and Time 2) SO if I make three cache entries in three transaction before the time (which is configured to lets say 4000 ms ) then the writeAll should be called for the 3 entries. My transaction level is Optimistic with Serializable. Does this affect something? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-WRite-Behind-tp4741p4796.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ignite WRite Behind
Hi, writeAll() method is only executed for entries located in the same cache. As you have only 1 entry per cache in transaction, this is expected behavior that writeAll() is not called. Normally, you should make your logic dependent on whether write() or writeAll() is called, because it is up to Ignite to decide which method to call. Vladimir. On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:54 AM, amitpa <ami...@nrifintech.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have 2 nodes setup and there are around 5 different caches involved, with > 1 entry per cache per transaction. > > I have writeThrough set to true and writeBehindEnabled set to true. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-WRite-Behind-tp4741p4748.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
Re: Ignite WRite Behind
Hi, I have 2 nodes setup and there are around 5 different caches involved, with 1 entry per cache per transaction. I have writeThrough set to true and writeBehindEnabled set to true. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-WRite-Behind-tp4741p4748.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
