Re: [infinispan-dev] benchmarking 5.1 vs 5.0
On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
Hi,
Now that all the 5.1 major work is done I plan to run some benchmarks comparing 5.1 with
5.0. It's not only tx stuff I'd like to compare, as some other were made, so
here's my plan of action.
Each of the following benchmarks will be run on local, distributed and replicated
caches:
1. non transactional: web session replication[1]
2. transactional (both optimistic and pessimistic): web session replication[2]
3. transactional (both optimistic and pessimistic): tpcc [3]
The difference between 2 and 3 is the fact that 3 induces some key contention between
transactions.
Any other suggestion for benchmarking?
Could it be interesting to see what the autoCommit penalty is? i.e. comparing:
non-transactional cache vs transactional cache with autoCommit
Assuming that there's no transactions managed, each cache write operation would be a
transaction with autoCommit.
When does it make sense to use autoCommit? Maybe if the cache has to participate in a tx,
even if it's a single operation, with another resource, i.e. a database? If so,
what's the penalty?
Cheers,
Mircea
[1] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WebSessionBenchmark
[2] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/BenchmarkingTransactions
[3] tpcc is Radargun extension developed by Sebastiano Peluso from the CloudTM team.
It's now integrated in Radargun, I'm working on adding some documentation around
it atm.
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache