Hello! I don't think that we publish results.
Please take look at our benchmarking approach at https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/perfomance-benchmarking Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пн, 29 апр. 2019 г. в 05:57, Coleman, JohnSteven (Agoda) < [email protected]>: > Hi, > > > > Thanks for that observation. I increased cache test to 100,000 entries and > the average write time is far better at around 23K wps. It seems like a lot > of latency on the first few hundred writes. > > Do you have any benchmarks published? > > John > > > > *From:* Ilya Kasnacheev <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2019 7:29 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: cache update slow > > > > Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links nor > open attachments! > ------------------------------ > > Hello! > > > > I think that comparing steady state benchmarks of multi-million operations > versus 500 operations is misleading. > > > > 500 operations is probably not enough to gain full benefits from e.g. JIT. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > пт, 26 апр. 2019 г. в 12:20, Coleman, JohnSteven (Agoda) < > [email protected]>: > > Hi, > > Yes, comparing to DMA is apples and oranges comparison, but gives an idea > of the relative gap in performance. > > A better comparison would be to an alike product such as NCache. They > claims 20K wps*, thus 20 times faster than my ignite results, but obvs I'd > have to compare using my scenario for a valid comparison. But this is more > like the kind of gap in performance I'd expect vs DMA. But then NCache > product is also quite different from ignite, so what to say? > > regards, > John > > http://www.alachisoft.com/ncache/ncache-performance-benchmarks.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxim.Pudov <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: cache update slow > > Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links nor > open attachments! > ________________________________ > > Glad you met your requirements. I think it is not fair to compare Ignite > with direct memory access, so I can't really say whether this is a good > result or not. In your case .net process starts a java process and > communicates with it via JNI [1]. Also Ignite stores cache data off-heap, > which requires serialisation [2]. > > [1] https://apacheignite-net.readme.io/docs#section-ignite-and-ignitenet > [2] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/durable-memory > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ > > ________________________________ > This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s). It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by copyright > or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know > by reply email and delete it from your system. It is prohibited to copy > this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any confidentiality or > privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or unauthorized > disclosure of the message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be > monitored to ensure compliance with company policies, to protect the > company's interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages > may be intercepted, amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses. > >
