According to pastebin link atomic cache is used. On Sep 3, 2015 02:42, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks, Alexey! This is very useful. > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I have just confirmed by running a benchmark on a cluster that invokeAll >> in ATOMIC cache does NOT linearly increase latency because we do send all >> updates at once. Here are my results: >> >> Batch size Latency (ns) >> 1 459,957.47 >> 2 497,306.94 >> 4 494,442.05 >> 8 507,194.52 >> 16 555,202.75 >> 32 643,215.03 >> >> If you are using a TRANSACTIONAL cache, you will probably end up in a >> situation when each next key travels to a separate node that would explain >> the behavior you see. Note that Ignite cannot change the order of lock >> acquisition for TRANSACTIONAL cache in order to avoid deadlocks. To improve >> performance in this case, you need to group keys by partition so that >> maximum number of keys is sent to a node at one network hop. >> >> 2015-09-02 6:44 GMT-07:00 javadevmtl <[email protected]>: >> >>> Just curious are you guys looking at what Yakov suggested about the >>> mapping >>> to 1 event? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Is-invokeAll-considered-a-batch-operation-tp1220p1257.html >>> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >
