hi jjimeno.
* I doubt about « messageQueueLimit » correctness, plz remove it and try once
more.
* 16k per page is questionable, i suggest to try with default.
* why there is no progress with 2 node? can you append somehow logs from 2
nodes with transactions degradation?
* Take into account [1]
* You can collide with page replacements, is 4 Gb are ok for all your data ?
* Are you reading performance tricks ? [2]
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13997
[2]
https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/perf-troubleshooting-guide/general-perf-tips
>Hi everyone,
>
>For our project, we have the next requirements:
>
>- One single cache <Guid, BinaryBlob>
>- Ability to lock a list of cache entries.
>- Large transactions. A typical one is to commit 1.2 million keys (a single
>PutAll call) with a total size of around 600MB.
>- Persistence
>
>In our proof of concept, we've got everything implemented and running:
>
>- One server node 2.9.1. Native persistence is enabled for default data
>region.
>- One client application using one Ignite C++ Thin Client to connect to the
>server node.
>- Both, server and client, are in the same machine by now.
>
>With this scenario, we're currently evaluating Ignite vs RocksDB. We would
>really like to choose Ignite because of its scalability, but we are facing a
>problem related to its performance:
>
>In Ignite, one single transaction commit of 1.2 million keys and 600MB takes
>around 70 seconds to complete, while RocksDB takes no more than 12 seconds.
>Moreover, if a second local node is added to the cluster, the application is
>not even able of completing the transaction (it stops after 10 minutes)
>
>Default data region's page size has been modified up to 16KB. Persistence
>has been enabled.
>Cache is PARTITIONED with TRANSACTIONAL atomicity mode.
>Because of the requirement about locking keys, performed transaction is
>PESSIMISTIC + READ_COMMITTED.
>
>The rest of the configuration values are the default ones (No backup,
>PRIMARY_SYNC, no OnHeapCache, etc)
>
>So, my questions are:
>
>- Taking the requirements into account, is Ignite a good option?
>- It's those time values that one might expect?
>- If not, any advice to improve them?
>
>Configuration files for both server nodes have been attached. Thanks
>everyone in advance for your help and time,
>
>first-node.xml
>< http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/file/t3059/first-node.xml >
>second-node.xml
>< http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/file/t3059/second-node.xml >
>
>Josemari
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
