Hi Matt,
Matt Hoffman wrote > Based on his claim of a lot of threads waiting on the same locks, I > assumed > that's what was happening -- high contention for a few cache keys. I don't > know his use case, but I can imagine cases with a fairly small number of > very "hot" entries. > It wouldn't necessarily require very few keys, right? Just high contention > on a few of them. This is right, but what are you expectations in this scenario? Concurrent updates/reads of the same entry have to be synchronized, and Ignite locks only on per-entry level. In my view, this is the highest concurrency level possible. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Performance-Issue-Threads-blocking-tp4433p4508.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
