[Hawkular-dev] Performance Tests of Different Hawkular Inventory Backends

[Jay Shaughnessy]

Lukas,

That's excellent news.  Multiple backends is not something we really 
want to deal with.  Also, it might be nice to see a short presentation 
on the "best practices" for Tx handling.  But then again, that Tx stuff 
is handled at the Gremlin level?  So, perhaps not relevant to direct C* 
consumers like Alerts.

On 2/23/2016 12:43 PM, Lukas Krejci wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> lately I've become really dissatisfied with how Inventory performed and
> semi-publicly blamed Titan for that (because that was what looked like
> the cause of all world's problems in my then uneducated eyes ;) ).
>
> I decided to do some performance comparisons. Because we didn't want
> Hawkular to ship with 2 different NoSQL backends (C* for metrics and
> whatever else for Inventory), I chose an RDBMS as a good conservative
> alternative (because people, IMHO, are still more comfortable dealing
> with an RDBMS than with NoSQL databases).
>
> Currently, inventory is written against the graph DSL called Gremlin
> (from Tinkerpop 2.6.0). Fortunately, there exists a "toy" SQL backend
> for Tinkerpop 2 that we could try and see if it performed any good
> (which would frankly be surprising, given the fact it stores the graph
> data rather naively). With some luck, no code would have to be changed
> on our side to see the results.
>
> We had no such luck.
>
> Making the inventory run with the SQL backend was literally a day worth
> of work (if that) and the first preliminary tests showed that Inventory
> with Postgres backend performed much much better that Titan with
> embedded Cassandra. But the tests also uncovered some problems with the
> way Inventory code handled transactions.
>
> Fast forward 3 weeks and see large parts of Hawkular inventory updated
> to correctly handle transactions. Now a single call to Inventory really
> results in at most 1 transaction in the backend.
>
> So, I went and re-ran the tests. Also, I refrained from using embedded
> Cassandra and instead use a locally running 2-node cluster.
>
> The results caught me by surprise. Not so much that the naive SQL
> backend didn't perform particularly well, but the difference between the
> performance of Titan before and after the transaction handling fixes.
>
> To not keep you waiting any longer for the results: Titan + C* is the
> winner.
>
> For nice charts that include comparison to the old misbehaving impl, see:
> https://dashboards.ly/ua-tALzrY9rEoRBXvsLXbZJHT
>
> Cheers,
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hawkular-dev/attachments/20160223/bd1a1aa4/attachment-0001.html