Hi Pradeep, Member-member (server-server) performance is better than client-server one in the scenario because in the first case roughly a half of data will be stored on the server that executes the benchmark (meaning that there won’t be I/O at all). While in case with client-server case the client always has to send the data to a remote server.
In fact if you run more servers on different physical machines and start the benchmark using the client node the performance should be better rather with the configuration with less servers. — Denis > On Jun 22, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Pradeep Badiger <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Denis, > > Thanks for your response. I ran the benchmark test on a single VM with 8 > cores and 2Gb allocated to each server instance (member). All the tests were > for optimistic transactions with no backup and with the default JVM settings > in benchmark.properties. I see that the performance of client-member is lower > than the member-member setup. The client was configured using –client in the > benchmark.properties. I have attached the configuration for 1 client 1 server > mode. I was trying to run it on a single server with no clients but I was not > able to configure that in the benchmark test. I am not sure if it is worth to > test that scenario, as all the calls would be local and latency would be lot > less. > > Please let me know if the member-member performance is lot better compared to > client-member performance. > > Clients > Servers > Threads > Latency (ms) > Min > Avg > Max > 0 > 2 > 8 > 0.341 > 0.451 > 0.881 > 0 > 2 > 8 > 0.362 > 0.470 > 0.874 > 1 > 2 > 8 > 0.695 > 0.749 > 1.070 > 1 > 1 > 8 > 0.576 > 0.726 > 1.102 > > Thanks, > Pradeep V.B. > > From: Denis Magda [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 6:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: performance issues > > Hi, > > In a single server mode (embedded) there is no I/O (networking) at all. All > the requests are executed locally. When you use the client node you’ll have > I/O delays. The performance here can depend on several factors: > - latency and throughput of your network; > - CPU saturation; > > So take a look at these system resources usage. > > Also make sure that there are no long GC pauses or that GC Threads don’t > consume much of CPUs. Refer to this doc for JVM tuning settings > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/jvm-and-system-tuning > <https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/jvm-and-system-tuning> > > Finally, share your benchmark source and configuration for validation. > > — > Denis > > On Jun 16, 2016, at 11:04 PM, Pradeep Badiger <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am trying to run the yardstick ignite benchmark test on my local VM having > 8 Cores and 16GB RAM. I could see that the performance of Optimistic PUT/GET > is way low for a client-server mode than what I see when running within one > single server (embedded mode). Also the performance degrades with 1 > additional server node. Can someone help me to optimize this? > > There was a blog where the author commented that the performance of the > product is much similar when run in both client and server. Am I missing > something here? > > https://gridgain.blogspot.com/2015/04/benchmarking-data-grids-apache-ignite.html?showComment=1466104423051 > > <https://gridgain.blogspot.com/2015/04/benchmarking-data-grids-apache-ignite.html?showComment=1466104423051> > > > Thanks, > Pradeep V.B. > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary > and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please delete it immediately. > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary > and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please delete it > immediately.<benchmark.properties>
