[infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default config

Radim Vansa rvansa at redhat.com
Thu Jan 3 08:46:53 EST 2013 

| 
| 
| Bela, I'm pretty sure these tests use UDP. I'd be really surprised if
| we could improve TCP performance by lowering max_credits.

True, they do.

| 
| We do have a JIRA to change the state transfer behaviour to request
| state from only a few nodes at a time (perhaps only 1):
| https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2580 . Adrian is working on it
| ATM, and once it's integrated it would make UUPerf performance
| largely irrelevant.

I don't think so, I expect that e.g. 3 nodes to make ST from is perfectly reasonable scenario and as these tests are ran with 4 nodes, this is the case.

| 
| Even if Adrian's fix doesn't make it into Final, I think a
| max_credits of only 20k would impact performance in the "stable
| state" (i.e. what UPerf is testing). So maybe we can find a
| workaround, like lowering Infinispan's stateTransfer.chunkSize.

Yeah, I have used 10MB messages for testing, I should do that for smaller ones as well.

| 
| I wonder if we could automate UPerf and UUPerf, like RadarGun does
| (or maybe make them RadarGun test scenarios?), so we can gather more
| data points. At the moment there's a lot of manual work involved in
| running the tests with all the possible configurations
| (TCP/UNICAST2, TCP/UNICAST2/UFC, UDP/UNICAST, UDP/UNICAST/UFC,
| UDP/UNICAST2/UFC, UDP/UNICAST2/UFC/RSVP, each protocol with several
| tweak-able attributes) and figuring out which configuration is
| "best".

This sounds good, using JGroups cachewrapper I could just do GET on one slave in a loop, right? The only modification required is that the JGroupsWrapper.get should do dispatcher.callRemoteMethods(...) with all members instead of just single invocation. And maybe the 
I think I could grab some time for this next week.

Radim

| 
| 
| 
| 
| On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Bela Ban < bban at redhat.com > wrote:
| 
| 
| Let's make sure though that we have a meaningful default that's not
| optimized for an edge case. Also, if we use TCP, we can remove UFC
| from
| the config, as TCP already performs point-to-point flow control.
| 
| 
| 
| On 1/3/13 11:29 AM, Radim Vansa wrote:
| > 20k credits seems to be the best choice for this test:
| > 
| > 10k: bad performance
| > 20k: Average of 2.79 requests / sec (27.87MB / sec), 358.81 ms
| > /request (prot=UNICAST2)
| > 30k: Average of 2.52 requests / sec (25.18MB / sec), 397.15 ms
| > /request (prot=UNICAST2)
| > 50k: Average of 2.35 requests / sec (23.47MB / sec), 426.10 ms
| > /request (prot=UNICAST2)
| > 80k: Average of 1.29 requests / sec (12.94MB / sec), 772.78 ms
| > /request (prot=UNICAST2)
| > 200k: bad performance
| > 
| > (for remembrance: 4 nodes in hyperion, for these results I've set
| > up 8k frag size)
| > 
| > I have held dot key for the duration of the test so you can see how
| > long each apply state took as the dots were inserted into console
| > in constant rate (lame ascii chart). See attachements.
| > 
| > Radim
| > 
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > | From: "Dan Berindei" < dan.berindei at gmail.com >
| > | To: "infinispan -Dev List" < infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org >
| > | Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 8:01:26 AM
| > | Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default config
| > | 
| > | 
| > | 
| > | 
| > | This is weird, I would have expected problems with the last
| > | message,
| > | but not in the middle of the sequence (that's why I suggested
| > | sending only 1 message). Maybe we need an an even lower
| > | max_credits...
| > | 
| > | Merry Christmas to you, too!
| > | 
| > | Dan
| > | On 21 Dec 2012 16:41, "Radim Vansa" < rvansa at redhat.com > wrote:
| > | 
| > | 
| > | Hi Dan,
| > | 
| > | I have ran the test on 4 nodes in hyperion (just for the start to
| > | see
| > | how it will behave) but with 100 messages (1 message is nothing
| > | for
| > | a statistician) each 10MB and I see a weird behaviour - there are
| > | about 5-10 messages received in a fast succession and then the
| > | nothing is received for several seconds. I experience this
| > | behaviour
| > | for both 200k and 500k credits. Is this really how it should
| > | perform?
| > | 
| > | Merry Christmas and tons of snow :)
| > | 
| > | Radim
| > | 
| > | <h1>☃</h1>
| > | 
| > | ----- Original Message -----
| > | | From: "Dan Berindei" < dan.berindei at gmail.com >
| > | | To: "infinispan -Dev List" < infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org >
| > | | Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:57:08 AM
| > | | Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default config
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | Hi Radim
| > | | 
| > | | If you run the test with only 2 nodes and FC disabled, it's
| > | | going
| > | | to
| > | | perform even better. But then as you increase the number of
| > | | nodes,
| > | | the speed with no FC will drop dramatically (when we didn't
| > | | have
| > | | RSVP enabled, with only 3 nodes, it didn't manage to send 1 x
| > | | 10MB
| > | | message in 10 minutes).
| > | | 
| > | | Please run the tests with as many nodes as possible and just 1
| > | | message x 10MB. If 500k still performs better, create a JIRA to
| > | | change the default.
| > | | 
| > | | Cheers
| > | | Dan
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Radim Vansa <
| > | | rvansa at redhat.com >
| > | | wrote:
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | Sorry I haven't specified the amount, I am a stupido... my
| > | | tests
| > | | are
| > | | working with 500k credits.
| > | | 
| > | | UUPerf (JGroups 3.2.4.Final-redhat-1) from one computer in
| > | | perflab
| > | | to
| > | | another, 2 threads (default), 1000x sends 10MB message (default
| > | | chunkSize = 10000 * our entry size is usually 1kB) executed 3x
| > | | 
| > | | 200k: Average of 6.02 requests / sec (60.19MB / sec), 166.13 ms
| > | | /request (prot=UNICAST2)
| > | | Average of 5.61 requests / sec (56.09MB / sec), 178.30 ms
| > | | /request
| > | | (prot=UNICAST2)
| > | | Average of 5.49 requests / sec (54.94MB / sec), 182.03 ms
| > | | /request
| > | | (prot=UNICAST2)
| > | | 
| > | | 500k: Average of 7.93 requests / sec (79.34MB / sec), 126.04 ms
| > | | /request (prot=UNICAST2)
| > | | Average of 8.18 requests / sec (81.82MB / sec), 122.23 ms
| > | | /request
| > | | (prot=UNICAST2)
| > | | Average of 8.41 requests / sec (84.09MB / sec), 118.92 ms
| > | | /request
| > | | (prot=UNICAST2)
| > | | 
| > | | Can you also reproduce such results? I think that suggests that
| > | | 500k
| > | | behaves really better.
| > | | 
| > | | Radun
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | ----- Original Message -----
| > | | | From: "Dan Berindei" < dan.berindei at gmail.com >
| > | | | To: "infinispan -Dev List" < infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org >
| > | | | Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:43:37 PM
| > | | | Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default
| > | | | config
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Bela Ban < bban at redhat.com >
| > | | | wrote:
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | Dan reduced those values to 200K, IIRC it was for UUPerfwhich
| > | | | behaved
| > | | | best with 200K. Idon't know if this is still needed. Dan ?
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | I haven't run UUPerf in a while...
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | On 12/17/12 12:19 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
| > | | | > Hi,
| > | | | > 
| > | | | > recently I have synchronized our jgroups configuration with
| > | | | > the
| > | | | > default one shipped with Infinispan
| > | | | > (core/src/main/resources/jgroups-(tcp|udp).xml) and it has
| > | | | > shown
| > | | | > that 200k credits in UFC/MFC (I keep the two values in
| > | | | > sync) is
| > | | | > not enough even for our smallest resilience test (killing
| > | | | > one
| > | | | > of
| > | | | > four nodes). The state transfer was often blocked when
| > | | | > requesting
| > | | | > for more credits which resulted in not completing it within
| > | | | > the
| > | | | > time limit.
| > | | | > Therefore, I'd like to suggest to increase the amount of
| > | | | > credits
| > | | | > in
| > | | | > default configuration as well, because we simply cannot use
| > | | | > the
| > | | | > lower setting and it's preferable to have the
| > | | | > configurations as
| > | | | > close as possible. The only settings we need to keep
| > | | | > different
| > | | | > are
| > | | | > thread pool sizes and addresses and ports.
| > | | | > 
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | | What value would you like to use instead?
| > | | | 
| > | | | Can you try UUPerf with 200k and your proposed configuration
| > | | | and
| > | | | compare the results?
| > | | | 
| > | | | Cheers
| > | | | Dan
| > | | | 
| > | | | 
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | | _______________________________________________
| > | | | infinispan-dev mailing list
| > | | | infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
| > | | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
| > | | _______________________________________________
| > | | infinispan-dev mailing list
| > | | infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
| > | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
| > | | 
| > | | 
| > | | _______________________________________________
| > | | infinispan-dev mailing list
| > | | infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
| > | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
| > | 
| > | _______________________________________________
| > | infinispan-dev mailing list
| > | infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
| > | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
| > | _______________________________________________
| > | infinispan-dev mailing list
| > | infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
| > | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
| > 
| > 
| > _______________________________________________
| > infinispan-dev mailing list
| > infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
| > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
| 
| 
| --
| Bela Ban, JGroups lead ( http://www.jgroups.org )
| 
| 
| 
| _______________________________________________
| infinispan-dev mailing list
| infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
| https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
| 
| _______________________________________________
| infinispan-dev mailing list
| infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
| https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

More information about the infinispan-dev mailing list