Alexey, Did you use OFFHEAP in your benchmark? Also it is interesting how it will behave with enabled offheap for relatively large values, like HashSet<String> of different sizes.
Sergi 2015-09-03 15:07 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[email protected]>: > 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>
