I think it will also be useful to switch to offheap tiered (cacheConfig.setMemoryMode()) in 1.9 and compare results again.
--Yakov 2017-05-12 11:30 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <[email protected]>: > Hi Chris, > > One of the most significant changes made in 2.0 was moving to an off-heap > storage by default. This means that each time you do a get(), your value > gets deserialized, which might be an overhead (though, I would be a bit > surprised if this causes the 10x drop). > > Can you try setting CacheConfiguration#setOnheapCacheEnabled(true) and > check if performance gets back? > > 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 >> >> >> >
