Thanks for your suggestion. I did not follow this:
"For this use-case I would suggest using single cache puts (the same way
you
insert data to Oracle) and combine it with write-behind store writing to
HDFS, this should give you better latencies."
Are you suggesting not using IGFS and using Ignite cache directly with a
write-behind store?
May I use a regular file system as a write behind with Ignite cache?
>If you still want to proceed with IGFS, I would try increasing IGFS file
>block size, see FileSystemConfiguration#blockSize.
What is the default block size of IGFS? I could not find it on Javadoc.
Also, I am persisting in IGFS as follows:
* IgniteFileSystem fs;
IgfsPath path;
byte[] data;
//...
try (OutputStream out = fs.create(path, true)) { out.write(data); }
*
If I used buffered I/O could I see significant drop in latency?
thanx,
/Kobe
alexey.goncharuk wrote
> Kobe,
>
> I am not sure this is a fair comparison because writing a file to IGFS
> involves 3 operations: updating the metadata cache (empty file creation),
> actual file writing and then updating the metadata cache again (update the
> file size).
> For this use-case I would suggest using single cache puts (the same way
> you
> insert data to Oracle) and combine it with write-behind store writing to
> HDFS, this should give you better latencies.
>
> If you still want to proceed with IGFS, I would try increasing IGFS file
> block size, see FileSystemConfiguration#blockSize.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Blob-persistence-performance-IGFS-vs-Oracle-tp3174p3179.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
