Hi,

> 1. Can some one try my test program in order to see what is the problem
here?

First, you don't have problem here. :) Second, your benchmark is incorrect.
Read the thread on SO for additional information how correct to write
benchmark:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/504103/how-do-i-write-a-correct-micro-benchmark-in-java
I've changed test methods: put/get executed 3 times (warmup)

try (IgniteCache<Integer, Integer> cache = ignite.getOrCreateCache(cfg)) {
    put(cache);
    get(cache);

    put(cache);
    get(cache);

    put(cache);
    get(cache);
}

and let's see how changing numbers:

One client 2 servers
>>> Put completed. Took 24928 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 13272 ms.
>>> Put completed. Took 14010 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 9331 ms.
>>> Put completed. Took 13357 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 9131 ms.

After this changes I got the following test results:

1 node:
>>> Put completed. Took 2042 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 399 ms.

2 nodes:
>>> Put completed. Took 7791 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 4218 ms.

3 nodes:
>>> Put completed. Took 10474 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 5412 ms.

It's ok for me. When you start one node all changes was made locally
(absolutely without network communication), 2 nodes - half of operation
will be locally and etc. If we perform operation from client node then we
will get the following numbers:

One client and two servers nodes
>>> Put completed. Took 13357 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 9131 ms.

One client and one server node.
>>> Put completed. Took 12132 ms.
>>> Get completed. Took 8714 ms.

It shows that we have approximately the same values.


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:05 AM, bintisepaha <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sam, could you post your cache configuration? How many backups do you have?
> What is the marshaller you are using? is there garbage collection
> happening?
>
> Thanks,
> Binti
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.
> 70518.x6.nabble.com/Performance-with-increase-in-node-tp9378p9921.html
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Reply via email to