Was the cache loader shared? Which cache loader were you using?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:03 AM, James Aley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:james.aley@swiftkey.net" target="_blank">james.aley@swiftkey.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hey all,<br>
<br>
<OT><br>
Seeing as this is my first post, I wanted to just quickly thank you<br>
all for Infinispan. So far I'm really enjoying working with it - great<br>
product!<br>
</OT><br>
<br>
I'm using the InfinispanDirectory for a Lucene project at the moment.<br>
We use Lucene directly to build a search product, which has high read<br>
requirements and likely very large indexes. I'm hoping to make use of<br>
a distribution mode cache to keep the whole index in memory across a<br>
cluster of machines (the index will be too big for one server).<br>
<br>
The problem I'm having is that after loading a filesystem-based Lucene<br>
directory into InfinispanDirectory via LuceneCacheLoader, no nodes are<br>
retrieving data from the cluster - they instead look up keys in their<br>
local CacheLoaders, which involves lots of disk I/O and is very slow.<br>
I was hoping to just use the CacheLoader to initialize the caches, but<br>
from there on read only from RAM (and network, of course). Is this<br>
supported? Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the CacheLoader?<br>
<br>
To explain my observations in a little more detail:<br>
* I start a cluster of two servers, using [1] as the cache config.<br>
Both have a local copy of the Lucene index that will be loaded into<br>
the InfinispanDirectory via the loader. This is a test configuration,<br>
where I've set numOwners=1 so that I only need two servers for<br>
distribution to happen.<br>
* Upon startup, things look good. I see the memory usage of the JVM<br>
reflect a pretty near 50/50 split of the data across both servers.<br>
Logging indicates both servers are in the cluster view, all seems<br>
fine.<br>
* When I send a search query to either one of the nodes, I notice the following:<br>
- iotop shows huge (~100MB/s) disk I/O on that node alone from the<br>
JVM process.<br>
- no change in network activity between nodes (~300b/s, same as when idle)<br>
- memory usage on the node running the query increases dramatically,<br>
and stays higher even after the query is finished.<br>
<br>
So it seemed to me like each node was favouring use of the CacheLoader<br>
to retrieve keys that are not in memory, instead of using the cluster.<br>
Does that seem reasonable? Is this the expected behaviour?<br>
<br>
I started to investigate this by turning on trace logging, in this<br>
made me think perhaps the cause was that the CacheLoader's interceptor<br>
is higher priority in the chain than the the distribution interceptor?<br>
I'm not at all familiar with the design in any level of detail - just<br>
what I picked up in the last 24 hours from browsing the code, so I<br>
could easily be way off. I've attached the log snippets I thought<br>
relevant in [2].<br>
<br>
Any advice offered much appreciated.<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
James.<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531" target="_blank">https://www.refheap.com/paste/12531</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543" target="_blank">https://www.refheap.com/paste/12543</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
infinispan-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>