Chris, that's very surprising. Let's get to the bottom of it. 1. You have 10 nodes with 4 partitioned caches each configured with 2 backups. There are no updates to the caches. Correct? 2. Are caches atomic or transactional? 3. 5 nodes send compute jobs to the topology of 10 nodes. Correct? 4. How many jobs does each task produce? 5. How many lookups does each job do? 6. Will there be any difference between 1.9 and 2.0 if you send the same number of empty jobs? 7. If job does not do any local processing and just returns result of cache.localPeek() then it would be fine to replace tasks with cache.getAll().
Thanks! --Yakov 2017-05-11 17:45 GMT+03:00 Chris Berry <[email protected]>: > Hello, > > We are currently migrating a high volume/low latency system to use Ignite. > And we were excited by the claims of Ignite 2.0 to have great performance > improvements. > So we did a performance test of it last night. > > Unfortunately, we saw a 10X DECREASE in performance over 1.9. > This is using the exact same code. And running the 2 tests (1.9 vs 2.0) > back to back (in AWS). > > Our test system is relatively simple. It is a 10 Node Compute Grid. Hit > from 5 load generators running in the same AWS Region. > We rely heavily on cache affinity -- wherein we use 4 Partitioned caches > (each w/ 2 backups) – all using the same cache Key (a UUID). > > We use a simple ComputeTask – mapping jobs (UUIDs) out to the grid – and > then collecting them after. > > The ComputeJob then does all of it’s lookups using localPeek (to ensure we > stay on-box) > The system is almost all Reads. > > This system – under high load – computing in batches of 200 UUIDs – was > responding to our tests (in 1.9.0) at 53ms Mean with 1370 batches/sec > In 2.0.0 – we are getting a 574ms Mean with 134 batches/sec > > Clearly we are missing a tuning parameter w/ 2.0.0?? > > BTW: On the positive side, I do see significantly less Heap usage with > 2.0.0. > > I realize that I am being a bit vague on code specifics. > > But a lot of that needs to be “expunged” before I can post it to the > public internet. > > Although, I can provide whatever necessary, I hope…. > Thanks, > -- Chris > > >
