Hi all, I had the chance to look at the TPCC radargun plug-in you've built (https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun.git - branch TPCC) and I had some comments to make: 1. Instead of using divisions for converting time units, it'd be better to use TimeUnit conversions to make the code more readable.

2. To make the test run faster, it'd be interesting to transform Order...etc to use Infinispan Externalizers but that's not portable to other frameworks. So, implementing Externalizable could be a good middle ground.

3. Is TpccPopulationStage executed in each slave? Or in single slave? Seems like it's only executed in one of the slaves? If so that's fine cos it'd replicate to all right?

4. Has this TPCC benchmark code been run with Infinispan 4?

Overall looks good from a RadarGun integration point of view, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of TPCC, so someone else should comment on how well the code adheres to the spec. I've noticed that RadarGun is not up to date with the latest 4.2 Infinispan version and does not have a plugin for Infinispan 5, so I'll update these two pieces. I plan to only create one plugin for Infinispan 5, which will contain latest Infinispan 5.1 beta. Cheers,

On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Mircea Markus wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 14 October 2011 10:33:36 GMT+01:00 >> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt>, Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >> >> Hi Mircea, >> >> OK, don't worry! :-) >> >> Cheers >> >> Sebastiano >> >> Il 13/10/11 19:31, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>> Hi Sebastiano, right now I'm busy remaking locking/transaction support in 5.1. This should keep me busy for the next 3 weeks or so - after that the plan is to look at tpcc, integrate it and produce performance numbers to go with it. >>> Sorry for not taking this sooner. >>> Cheers, >>> Mircea >>> On 11 Oct 2011, at 09:49, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> have you had the opportunity to take a look at the Radargun's tpcc branch inhttps://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc ? >>>> >>>> Can I issue anyway a pull request in Github? >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>> >>>> Il 29/08/11 11:49, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>>>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>>>> >>>>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>> >>>>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>>>> YES. >>>>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 13 October 2011 19:31:00 GMT+01:00 >> To: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt>, Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >> >> Hi Sebastiano, right now I'm busy remaking locking/transaction support in 5.1. This should keep me busy for the next 3 weeks or so - after that the plan is to look at tpcc, integrate it and produce performance numbers to go with it. >> Sorry for not taking this sooner. >> Cheers, >> Mircea >> On 11 Oct 2011, at 09:49, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>> Hi Mircea, >>> >>> have you had the opportunity to take a look at the Radargun's tpcc branch inhttps://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc ? >>> >>> Can I issue anyway a pull request in Github? >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Sebastiano >>> >>> Il 29/08/11 11:49, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>>> >>>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>> >>>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>>> YES. >>>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 11 October 2011 09:49:11 GMT+01:00 >> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >> >> Hi Mircea, >> >> have you had the opportunity to take a look at the Radargun's tpcc branch inhttps://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc ? >> >> Can I issue anyway a pull request in Github? >> >> Thank you. >> >> Cheers >> >> Sebastiano >> >> Il 29/08/11 11:49, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>> Hi Mircea, >>> >>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>> >>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Sebastiano >>> >>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>> >>>> >>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>> >>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>> >>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>> YES. >>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 31 August 2011 17:36:59 GMT+01:00 >> To: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >> >> Thank you Sebastiano, I'll give it a look this/next week. >> >> On 29 Aug 2011, at 11:49, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >> >>> Hi Mircea, >>> >>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>> >>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Sebastiano >>> >>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>> >>>> >>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>> >>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>> >>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>> YES. >>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 29 August 2011 11:49:17 GMT+01:00 >> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >> >> Hi Mircea, >> >> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >> >> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Sebastiano >> >> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>> Hi Mircea, >>> >>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>> >>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>> >>> Sebastiano >>> >>> >>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>> >>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>> >>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>> YES. >>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Mircea >>>>> Thank you again. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 12 July 2011 10:20:33 GMT+01:00 >> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Hi Mircea, >> >> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >> >> Thank you for your helpfulness. >> >> Sebastiano >> >> >> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>> >>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>> >>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>> >>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>> YES. >>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mircea >>>> Thank you again. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>> >>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>> >>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 11 July 2011 13:28:15 GMT+01:00 >> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >> >> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >> >>> Hi Mircea, >>> >>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>> >>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>> >>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>> YES. >>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>> >>>> >>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mircea >>> Thank you again. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Sebastiano >>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 11 July 2011 13:28:15 GMT+01:00 >> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >> >> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >> >>> Hi Mircea, >>> >>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>> >>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>> >>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>> YES. >>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>> >>>> >>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mircea >>> Thank you again. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Sebastiano >>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 8 July 2011 15:31:03 GMT+01:00 >> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Hi Mircea, >> >> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >> >> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>> Hi Sebastiano, >>> >>> Very interesting stuff! >>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >> YES. >>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>> >>> >>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>> Cheers, >>> Mircea >> Thank you again. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Sebastiano >>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>> >>> >>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have added a new subsection >>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>> >>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>> >>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>> >>>> >>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 8 July 2011 12:04:56 GMT+01:00 >> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Cc: Dan Berindei<dberinde(a)redhat.com> >> >> >> On 8 Jul 2011, at 11:41, Mircea Markus wrote: >> >>> I did, search this email for "Here are some observations I have after looking". >> Ok, didn't read the forwarded email. :) >> >> -- >> Manik Surtani >> manik(a)jboss.org >> twitter.com/maniksurtani >> >> Lead, Infinispan >> http://www.infinispan.org >> >> >> > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 8 July 2011 11:41:42 GMT+01:00 >> To: Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >> Cc: Dan Berindei<dberinde(a)redhat.com> >> >> I did, search this email for "Here are some observations I have after looking". >> >> On 8 Jul 2011, at 11:39, Manik Surtani wrote: >> >>> Could you give them some pointers on how to make this easier to integrate? >>> >>> Sent from my mobile phone >>> >>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 11:36, Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> wrote: >>> >>>> FYI, I reviewed the code and is far from being integrable in its current shape. The idea is really nice though, hope they'll update and we can at least take some of it. >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >>>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>> >>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>> >>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >>>>> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mircea >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>> >>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>> >>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 8 July 2011 11:39:37 GMT+01:00 >> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Cc: Dan Berindei<dberinde(a)redhat.com>, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> >> Could you give them some pointers on how to make this easier to integrate? >> >> Sent from my mobile phone >> >> On 8 Jul 2011, at 11:36, Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> wrote: >> >>> FYI, I reviewed the code and is far from being integrable in its current shape. The idea is really nice though, hope they'll update and we can at least take some of it. >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>> >>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>> >>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >>>> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>> >>>> >>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mircea >>>> >>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Fwd: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 8 July 2011 11:36:29 GMT+01:00 >> To: Dan Berindei<dberinde(a)redhat.com>, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> >> FYI, I reviewed the code and is far from being integrable in its current shape. The idea is really nice though, hope they'll update and we can at least take some of it. >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>> >>> Hi Sebastiano, >>> >>> Very interesting stuff! >>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>> >>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >>> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>> >>> >>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mircea >>> >>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>> >>> >>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have added a new subsection >>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>> >>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>> >>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>> >>>> >>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Hi Sebastiano, >> >> Very interesting stuff! >> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >> >> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >> >> >> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >> >> Cheers, >> Mircea >> >> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have added a new subsection >>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>> >>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>> >>> The source code is available at this link: >>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sebastiano Peluso >>> >>> >>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Hi Sebastiano, >> >> Very interesting stuff! >> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >> >> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >> >> >> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >> >> Cheers, >> Mircea >> >> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >> >> >> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have added a new subsection >>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>> >>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>> >>> The source code is available at this link: >>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sebastiano Peluso >>> >>> >>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 28 June 2011 13:36:40 GMT+01:00 >> To: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> Cc:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Didn't look at it in details but looks promising. I'll take a look later on this week. >> >> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:44, Manik Surtani wrote: >>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>> >>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have added a new subsection >>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>> >>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>> >>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>> >>>> >>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> -- >>> Manik Surtani >>> manik(a)jboss.org >>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>> >>> Lead, Infinispan >>> http://www.infinispan.org >>> >>> >>> > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 28 June 2011 13:36:40 GMT+01:00 >> To: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> Cc:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Didn't look at it in details but looks promising. I'll take a look later on this week. >> >> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:44, Manik Surtani wrote: >>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>> >>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have added a new subsection >>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>> >>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>> >>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>> >>>> >>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> -- >>> Manik Surtani >>> manik(a)jboss.org >>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>> >>> Lead, Infinispan >>> http://www.infinispan.org >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >> _______________________________________________ >> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 27 June 2011 17:01:01 GMT+01:00 >> To: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >> Cc: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso@gsd.inesc-id.pt>,mmarkus(a)redhat.com, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> >> Thanks wiling to contribute this! >> I've received my account details and I'll take a look this/next week at it. >> >> Cheers, >> Mircea >> >> On 22 Jun 2011, at 19:41, Paolo Romano wrote: >> >>> I am afraid that Mircea will not be able to log-in to the wiki. >>> >>> Sebastiano, please, can you create an account for him? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Paolo >>> >>> >>> On 6/22/11 6:44 PM, Manik Surtani wrote: >>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> -- >>>> Manik Surtani >>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>> >>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 27 June 2011 17:01:01 GMT+01:00 >> To: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >> Cc: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso@gsd.inesc-id.pt>,mmarkus(a)redhat.com, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> >> Thanks wiling to contribute this! >> I've received my account details and I'll take a look this/next week at it. >> >> Cheers, >> Mircea >> >> On 22 Jun 2011, at 19:41, Paolo Romano wrote: >> >>> I am afraid that Mircea will not be able to log-in to the wiki. >>> >>> Sebastiano, please, can you create an account for him? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Paolo >>> >>> >>> On 6/22/11 6:44 PM, Manik Surtani wrote: >>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> -- >>>> Manik Surtani >>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>> >>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 22 June 2011 19:41:00 GMT+01:00 >> To: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso@gsd.inesc-id.pt>,mmarkus(a)redhat.com >> Cc: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> >> I am afraid that Mircea will not be able to log-in to the wiki. >> >> Sebastiano, please, can you create an account for him? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Paolo >> >> >> On 6/22/11 6:44 PM, Manik Surtani wrote: >>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>> >>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have added a new subsection >>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>> >>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>> >>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>> >>>> >>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> -- >>> Manik Surtani >>> manik(a)jboss.org >>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>> >>> Lead, Infinispan >>> http://www.infinispan.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 22 June 2011 18:44:50 GMT+01:00 >> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> Cc: Mircea Markus<mmarkus(a)redhat.com> >> >> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >> >> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have added a new subsection >>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>> >>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>> >>> The source code is available at this link: >>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sebastiano Peluso >>> >>> >>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >> -- >> Manik Surtani >> manik(a)jboss.org >> twitter.com/maniksurtani >> >> Lead, Infinispan >> http://www.infinispan.org >> >> >> > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >> Date: 22 June 2011 18:44:50 GMT+01:00 >> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> Cc: Mircea Markus<mmarkus(a)redhat.com> >> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >> >> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have added a new subsection >>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>> >>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>> >>> The source code is available at this link: >>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sebastiano Peluso >>> >>> >>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >> -- >> Manik Surtani >> manik(a)jboss.org >> twitter.com/maniksurtani >> >> Lead, Infinispan >> http://www.infinispan.org >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion -- Galder Zamarreño Sr. Software Engineer Infinispan, JBoss Cache

Thx Sebastiano. Would you mind issuing a pull request for your tpcc branch so that we can integrate it into Radargun?

On Nov 7, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: > Hi Galder, > > thank you for the review. My answers are below inline. > > Il 04/11/11 11:02, Galder Zamarreño ha scritto: >> Hi all, >> >> I had the chance to look at the TPCC radargun plug-in you've built (https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun.git - branch TPCC) and I had some comments to make: >> >> 1. Instead of using divisions for converting time units, it'd be better to use TimeUnit conversions to make the code more readable. > Ok. I will adopt TimeUnit. >> 2. To make the test run faster, it'd be interesting to transform Order...etc to use Infinispan Externalizers but that's not portable to other frameworks. So, implementing Externalizable could be a good middle ground. > Thank you for the suggestion. I will implement Externalizable interface > for the TPC-C domain objects. > >> 3. Is TpccPopulationStage executed in each slave? Or in single slave? Seems like it's only executed in one of the slaves? If so that's fine cos it'd replicate to all right? > This is partially true. Each slave populates a slice of the data > container in a such a way that, for each pair of distinct slaves s1, s2, > if s1 populates the slice c1 and s2 populates the slice c2, then the > intersection between c1 and c2 is empty. > In this way we try to parallelize as much as possible cache loading, we > don't perform population in a transactional context and if the cache is > fully replicated then at the end of the population stage each node will > store all loaded data. >> 4. Has this TPCC benchmark code been run with Infinispan 4? > I ran it also on top of Infinispan 5. >> Overall looks good from a RadarGun integration point of view, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of TPCC, so someone else should comment on how well the code adheres to the spec. >> >> I've noticed that RadarGun is not up to date with the latest 4.2 Infinispan version and does not have a plugin for Infinispan 5, so I'll update these two pieces. >> >> I plan to only create one plugin for Infinispan 5, which will contain latest Infinispan 5.1 beta. >> >> Cheers, > Thank you again. > > Cheers, > > Sebastiano > >> On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Mircea Markus wrote: >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 14 October 2011 10:33:36 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt>, Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >>>> >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> OK, don't worry! :-) >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>> >>>> Il 13/10/11 19:31, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>> Hi Sebastiano, right now I'm busy remaking locking/transaction support in 5.1. This should keep me busy for the next 3 weeks or so - after that the plan is to look at tpcc, integrate it and produce performance numbers to go with it. >>>>> Sorry for not taking this sooner. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mircea >>>>> On 11 Oct 2011, at 09:49, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>> >>>>>> have you had the opportunity to take a look at the Radargun's tpcc branch inhttps://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Can I issue anyway a pull request in Github? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 29/08/11 11:49, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>>>>>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>>>>>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>>>>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>>>>>> YES. >>>>>>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 13 October 2011 19:31:00 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >>>> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt>, Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >>>> >>>> Hi Sebastiano, right now I'm busy remaking locking/transaction support in 5.1. This should keep me busy for the next 3 weeks or so - after that the plan is to look at tpcc, integrate it and produce performance numbers to go with it. >>>> Sorry for not taking this sooner. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mircea >>>> On 11 Oct 2011, at 09:49, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> have you had the opportunity to take a look at the Radargun's tpcc branch inhttps://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc ? >>>>> >>>>> Can I issue anyway a pull request in Github? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>> >>>>> Il 29/08/11 11:49, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>>>>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>>>>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>>>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>>>>> YES. >>>>>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 11 October 2011 09:49:11 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >>>> >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> have you had the opportunity to take a look at the Radargun's tpcc branch inhttps://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc ? >>>> >>>> Can I issue anyway a pull request in Github? >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>> >>>> Il 29/08/11 11:49, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>>>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>>>> >>>>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>> >>>>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>>>> YES. >>>>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 31 August 2011 17:36:59 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >>>> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >>>> >>>> Thank you Sebastiano, I'll give it a look this/next week. >>>> >>>> On 29 Aug 2011, at 11:49, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>>>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>>>> >>>>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>> >>>>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>>>> YES. >>>>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 29 August 2011 11:49:17 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Cc: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >>>> >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> I've finalized the implementation of TPC-C code (New Order, Payment and Order Status transactions) within Radargun. >>>> You can find the result as Radargun's tpcc branch at this link: >>>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/tree/tpcc >>>> >>>> Can you take a look at the code? I wait for your feedback before issuing a pull request in Github. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>> >>>> Il 12/07/11 11:20, Sebastiano Peluso ha scritto: >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>>> YES. >>>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 12 July 2011 10:20:33 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> I've just forked Radargun's master version and I will start the integration (following your observations/comments in the last mail) in the next week . I hope to finalize the work by the end of July. >>>> When I will have finished I will issue a pull request. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your helpfulness. >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>> >>>> >>>> Il 11/07/11 13:28, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>>> >>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>>> >>>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>> YES. >>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>> Thank you again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 11 July 2011 13:28:15 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>> >>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>> >>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>> YES. >>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Mircea >>>>> Thank you again. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 11 July 2011 13:28:15 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Thanks Sebastiano. Once you are finished, can you please issue a pull request for Radargun and we can take it from there? Please let me know if there'a anything I can help you with, e.g. github integration etc. >>>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 15:31, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Mircea, >>>>> >>>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>>> >>>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>> >>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>> YES. >>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Mircea >>>>> Thank you again. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano >>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 8 July 2011 15:31:03 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Hi Mircea, >>>> >>>> thank you for your reply. My answers to your questions/comments are inline. >>>> >>>> Il 08/07/11 11:33, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>> >>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>> YES. >>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>> Ok. Your observation is correct. In this way the code is more modular and we can have both the web session and the tpcc benchmarks. >>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>> This is partially correct. The "isPrimary" condition is evaluated only if the Primary-Backup replication mechanism is enabled because the code has been written in order to test this replication mechanism too. In this case only the primary node can perform write transactions. >>>> But if 2-Phase-Commit is enabled (lines 72-83 in TPCCTerminal), transactions (read and write) are spread over all nodes. This is always the case, because we don't have Primary-Backup in official Infinispan releases. >>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>> Sorry, this is a mistake :-) . >>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>> I agree. I can create one class for each tpcc transaction and assign each "case" block (referring to the current implementation of the executeTransaction method) to the corresponding class. >>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>> Ok. I'll remove .idea directory. >>>> In addition, I'll insert tpcc implementation in a forked version of radargun's master in order to benefit from merge features provided by git/github. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mircea >>>> Thank you again. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Sebastiano >>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>> >>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>> >>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 8 July 2011 12:04:56 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Cc: Dan Berindei<dberinde(a)redhat.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 11:41, Mircea Markus wrote: >>>> >>>>> I did, search this email for "Here are some observations I have after looking". >>>> Ok, didn't read the forwarded email. :) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Manik Surtani >>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>> >>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:41:42 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >>>> Cc: Dan Berindei<dberinde(a)redhat.com> >>>> >>>> I did, search this email for "Here are some observations I have after looking". >>>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 11:39, Manik Surtani wrote: >>>> >>>>> Could you give them some pointers on how to make this easier to integrate? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my mobile phone >>>>> >>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 11:36, Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> FYI, I reviewed the code and is far from being integrable in its current shape. The idea is really nice though, hope they'll update and we can at least take some of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>>>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >>>>>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>>>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >>>>>>> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Mircea >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Manik Surtani<msurtani(a)redhat.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:39:37 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Cc: Dan Berindei<dberinde(a)redhat.com>, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> >>>> Could you give them some pointers on how to make this easier to integrate? >>>> >>>> Sent from my mobile phone >>>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 11:36, Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> FYI, I reviewed the code and is far from being integrable in its current shape. The idea is really nice though, hope they'll update and we can at least take some of it. >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >>>>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>>> >>>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>>> >>>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >>>>>> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Mircea >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Fwd: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:36:29 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Dan Berindei<dberinde(a)redhat.com>, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> >>>> FYI, I reviewed the code and is far from being integrable in its current shape. The idea is really nice though, hope they'll update and we can at least take some of it. >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >>>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>>> >>>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>>> >>>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >>>>> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mircea >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>> >>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>> >>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>> >>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>> >>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >>>> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>> >>>> >>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mircea >>>> >>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 8 July 2011 11:33:41 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Hi Sebastiano, >>>> >>>> Very interesting stuff! >>>> I think this is a nice approach of benchmarking transactions with a controlled degree contention. This is a feature currently missing in Radargun, but very important especially considering the stuff you guys are doing and the locking improvements we have scheduled for 5.1 release. >>>> Do you consider contributing this back to Radargun? >>>> >>>> Here are some observations I have after looking at the code: >>>> - The code should not be in the PutGetStressor, as this is used for benchmarking a web-session-like access pattern which we don't want to replace. It might make more sense to be placed in a stage of its own, e.g. org.radargun.stages.TpccBenchmarkStage >>>> - "isPrimary" argument of TPCCTerminal.choiceTransaction is true if the node is a jgroups coordinator. This has some limitations: >>>> - other data grid providers than Infinispan might not have an "coordinator" concept, and this might be difficult to infer >>>> - ATM only the coordinator does writes (on multiple threads). IMO this is too restricting as it doesn't induce deadlock situations that might appear when data is written by multiple nodes. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the writes over all the nodes? >>>> In order to overcome the dependency on jgroup's coordinator, you can use instead the AbstractDistStage.slaveIndex. This is a Radargun-level view of the benchmark cluster, independent of the benchmarked product >>>> - PutGetStressor compares Strings based on the == operator, which is incorrect. e.g. e.getClass().getName() == "org.infinispan.CacheException" >>>> - As an design suggestion, I think it would make sense to have an TpccTransaction interface with an executeTransaction(CacheWrapper cacheWrapper) methods, with specialized implementations: NewOrderTransaction, PayementTransaction, OrderStatusTransaction. Basically to move all the code TPCCTerminal.executeTransaction into these three classes. Such an approach would reduce coupling between the transactions and most importantly would offer a simple way of adding new tpcc transactions to the system, by implementing the TpccTransaction interface. >>>> - class javadoc are the onese generater by IDEA >>>> - adding .idea directory in github might cause troubles for people using IDEA and forking your repo; I think the dir should be removed >>>> >>>> >>>> Another observation is about the way the project is managed in github: it is not a fork of Infinispan, but it was downloaded and committed as a totally different project. This means that all the nice review and merge feature that github and git offer cannot be used, but the merge needs to be made "by hand", comparing the source trees etc. I think it would make more sense to fork[1] from radargun's master[2] and apply all these nice feature on a fork. What do you think? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mircea >>>> >>>> [1]http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/ >>>> [2]https://github.com/radargun/radargun >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2________________________________________... >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 28 June 2011 13:36:40 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> Cc:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Didn't look at it in details but looks promising. I'll take a look later on this week. >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:44, Manik Surtani wrote: >>>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>>> >>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>> >>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>> >>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> -- >>>>> Manik Surtani >>>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>>> >>>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 28 June 2011 13:36:40 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> Cc:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Didn't look at it in details but looks promising. I'll take a look later on this week. >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:44, Manik Surtani wrote: >>>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>>> >>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>> >>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>> >>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> -- >>>>> Manik Surtani >>>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>>> >>>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 27 June 2011 17:01:01 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >>>> Cc: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso@gsd.inesc-id.pt>,mmarkus(a)redhat.com, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> >>>> Thanks wiling to contribute this! >>>> I've received my account details and I'll take a look this/next week at it. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mircea >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 19:41, Paolo Romano wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am afraid that Mircea will not be able to log-in to the wiki. >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano, please, can you create an account for him? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Paolo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/22/11 6:44 PM, Manik Surtani wrote: >>>>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Manik Surtani >>>>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>>>> >>>>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Mircea Markus<mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 27 June 2011 17:01:01 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >>>> Cc: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso@gsd.inesc-id.pt>,mmarkus(a)redhat.com, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> >>>> Thanks wiling to contribute this! >>>> I've received my account details and I'll take a look this/next week at it. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mircea >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 19:41, Paolo Romano wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am afraid that Mircea will not be able to log-in to the wiki. >>>>> >>>>> Sebastiano, please, can you create an account for him? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Paolo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/22/11 6:44 PM, Manik Surtani wrote: >>>>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Manik Surtani >>>>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>>>> >>>>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Paolo Romano<romano(a)inesc-id.pt> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 22 June 2011 19:41:00 GMT+01:00 >>>> To: Sebastiano Peluso<peluso@gsd.inesc-id.pt>,mmarkus(a)redhat.com >>>> Cc: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> >>>> I am afraid that Mircea will not be able to log-in to the wiki. >>>> >>>> Sebastiano, please, can you create an account for him? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Paolo >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/22/11 6:44 PM, Manik Surtani wrote: >>>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>>> >>>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>>> >>>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>>> >>>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>>> -- >>>>> Manik Surtani >>>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>>> >>>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 22 June 2011 18:44:50 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> Cc: Mircea Markus<mmarkus(a)redhat.com> >>>> >>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> -- >>>> Manik Surtani >>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>> >>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [Cloudtm-discussion] RadargunTPCC benchmark >>>> Date: 22 June 2011 18:44:50 GMT+01:00 >>>> To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> Cc: Mircea Markus<mmarkus(a)redhat.com> >>>> Reply-To:cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> >>>> Cool. I'm adding Mircea in cc, who maintains the upstream Radargun. Mircea, does it make sense to have this in Radargun upstream? >>>> >>>> On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:06, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have added a new subsection >>>>> (https://cloudtm.ist.utl.pt/wiki/index.php/RadargunTPCC), within the >>>>> "Shared software resources" section on the Cloud-TM Wiki, in order to >>>>> share information about the RadargunTPCC benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> RadargunTPCC benchmark is an implementation of the Transaction Profiles >>>>> defined in the TPC Benchmark C specification [1] within Radargun >>>>> Benchamark [2], and it has been designed with the purpose of executing >>>>> the TPC-C benchmark against Infinispan. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is available at this link: >>>>> https://github.com/cloudtm/RadargunTPCC >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sebastiano Peluso >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/spec/tpcc_current.pdf >>>>> [2]http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WikiStart >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >>>> -- >>>> Manik Surtani >>>> manik(a)jboss.org >>>> twitter.com/maniksurtani >>>> >>>> Lead, Infinispan >>>> http://www.infinispan.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. >>>> Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, >>>> secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? >>>> Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list >>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion >> -- >> Galder Zamarreño >> Sr. Software Engineer >> Infinispan, JBoss Cache >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

On 7 Nov 2011, at 16:22, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: > Il 07/11/11 15:05, Galder Zamarreño ha scritto: >> Thx Sebastiano. Would you mind issuing a pull request for your tpcc branch so that we can integrate it into Radargun? > Yes of course. >> Hi Sebastiano, if you need any help on this please let me know - my transactional improvements are almost finished/currently being reviewed, so I'm really keen to play with TPCC :-)

Thanks Sebastiano, Would it be possible to issue a pull request with the current code?

The two points you mentioned can be added at a further point in time. I'm asking this because I expect other changes to happen on top your TPC-C. Thanks! Mircea On 10 Nov 2011, at 18:04, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: > Hi Mircea, > > thank you. > > Before issuing a pull request I want to make two modifications in the > code: > > 1) implementing Externalizable interface for the TPC-C domain > objects (as suggested by Galder Zamarreño); > > 2) changing load/store methods of TPC-C domain classes in order > to treat domain objects as immutable objects. In fact, I have noticed > that we can have objects sharing among threads belonging to the same > node. > > Unfortunately I cannot make these modifications before the end of the > next week because I'm trying to finalize works for a close deadline. > > Nevertheless I think that you can already use the code for > benchmarking because the aforementioned "objects sharing" problem > affects only the application semantics (and it doesn't affect cache > performances) while Externalizable interfaces only make a test run > faster. > > Let me know if this is ok for you. > > > Cheers, > > Sebastiano > > > Il 10/11/11 01:54, Mircea Markus ha scritto: >> >> On 7 Nov 2011, at 16:22, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >> >>> Il 07/11/11 15:05, Galder Zamarreño ha scritto: >>>> Thx Sebastiano. Would you mind issuing a pull request for your tpcc branch so that we can integrate it into Radargun? >>> Yes of course. >>>> >> Hi Sebastiano, >> if you need any help on this please let me know - my transactional >> improvements are almost finished/currently being reviewed, so I'm >> really keen to play with TPCC :-) >> >

By the way, one last thing: On Nov 7, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: > Hi Galder, > > thank you for the review. My answers are below inline. > > Il 04/11/11 11:02, Galder Zamarreño ha scritto: >> Hi all, >> >> I had the chance to look at the TPCC radargun plug-in you've built (https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun.git - branch TPCC) and I had some comments to make: >> >> 1. Instead of using divisions for converting time units, it'd be better to use TimeUnit conversions to make the code more readable. > Ok. I will adopt TimeUnit. >> 2. To make the test run faster, it'd be interesting to transform Order...etc to use Infinispan Externalizers but that's not portable to other frameworks. So, implementing Externalizable could be a good middle ground. > Thank you for the suggestion. I will implement Externalizable interface > for the TPC-C domain objects. > >> 3. Is TpccPopulationStage executed in each slave? Or in single slave? Seems like it's only executed in one of the slaves? If so that's fine cos it'd replicate to all right? > This is partially true. Each slave populates a slice of the data > container in a such a way that, for each pair of distinct slaves s1, s2, > if s1 populates the slice c1 and s2 populates the slice c2, then the > intersection between c1 and c2 is empty. > In this way we try to parallelize as much as possible cache loading, we > don't perform population in a transactional context and if the cache is > fully replicated then at the end of the population stage each node will > store all loaded data. >> 4. Has this TPCC benchmark code been run with Infinispan 4? > I ran it also on top of Infinispan 5. What kind of results did you get? Did you try the latest Infinispan 5.1 snapshot too?

>> Overall looks good from a RadarGun integration point of view, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of TPCC, so someone else should comment on how well the code adheres to the spec. >> >> I've noticed that RadarGun is not up to date with the latest 4.2 Infinispan version and does not have a plugin for Infinispan 5, so I'll update these two pieces. >> >> I plan to only create one plugin for Infinispan 5, which will contain latest Infinispan 5.1 beta. >> >> Cheers, > Thank you again. > > Cheers, > > Sebastiano > >

On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >> By the way, one last thing: >> >> On Nov 7, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Sebastiano Peluso wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Galder, >>> >>> thank you for the review. My answers are below inline. >>> >>> Il 04/11/11 11:02, Galder Zamarreño ha scritto: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I had the chance to look at the TPCC radargun plug-in you've built ( >>>> https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun.git >>>> - branch TPCC) and I had some comments to make: >>>> >>>> 1. Instead of using divisions for converting time units, it'd be better to use TimeUnit conversions to make the code more readable. >>>> >>> Ok. I will adopt TimeUnit. >>> >>>> 2. To make the test run faster, it'd be interesting to transform Order...etc to use Infinispan Externalizers but that's not portable to other frameworks. So, implementing Externalizable could be a good middle ground. >>>> >>> Thank you for the suggestion. I will implement Externalizable interface >>> for the TPC-C domain objects. >>> >>> >>>> 3. Is TpccPopulationStage executed in each slave? Or in single slave? Seems like it's only executed in one of the slaves? If so that's fine cos it'd replicate to all right? >>>> >>> This is partially true. Each slave populates a slice of the data >>> container in a such a way that, for each pair of distinct slaves s1, s2, >>> if s1 populates the slice c1 and s2 populates the slice c2, then the >>> intersection between c1 and c2 is empty. >>> In this way we try to parallelize as much as possible cache loading, we >>> don't perform population in a transactional context and if the cache is >>> fully replicated then at the end of the population stage each node will >>> store all loaded data. >>> >>>> 4. Has this TPCC benchmark code been run with Infinispan 4? >>>> >>> I ran it also on top of Infinispan 5. >>> >> What kind of results did you get? >> >> Did you try the latest Infinispan 5.1 snapshot too? >> > We tested only 5.0.0, at the time in which we were working on the Atomic Multicast based distribution scheme. At this link http://www.gsd.inesc-id.pt/~romanop/files/papers/prdc2011.pdf the paper that reports the results. This has been accepted for publication at the IEEE 17th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC’11), Pasadena, California, Dec. 2011. Ok, i'll look into that. > Note that the results published in that paper are based on a slightly modified version of the benchmark that we are contributing to RG, in which we "adapted" the benchmark to reduce contention. Specifically we commented out the line 121 of class org.radargun.tpcc.transaction.PaymentTransaction [1], which would otherwise force each transaction of type Payment (accessing the same warehouse) to conflict with each other. Why did you do that?

> About adherence to the spec, which is something you had previously asked me. We do not claim that is compliant to the specification. We simply based this implementation on a previously existing open source implementation of the benchmark (http://jtpcc.sourceforge.net/), and stripped out SQL queries to work directly with ISPN's key/value data model. Also, we did not implement transaction Delivery and Stock-Level which were quite complex to implement without query support. In future, in fact, it would be interesting to extend them using the new ISPN query support. > > Given all the above premises, I think it is fair to claim that this benchmark generates a workload which resembles the one of the official TPC-C. Cool, that's valuable information.

> About testing on 5.1: our cluster is currently being used intensively as several people in our team (me included!!) are working on a tight schedule to finalize works for a close deadline. So I cannot promise that we will be able to test it in the next week or soon, but towards the end of the month it should be possible! > > One last issue that just came to mind. Since we based our implementation on a pre-existing one, released using GPL, should we take any particular care in the header files (adding references, pointers)? I'm not an expert in these legal matters, I'd appreciate your comments on this! Well, depends what you did exactly. If there're classes that are pretty much copies, you should maintain the copyright they had. If there're classes based on other GPL classes, the least you can do is reference and give credit. RadarGun is not being distributed, so nothing much else to worry about AFAIK (others might be able to comment further) > > Cheers, > > Sebastiano > > > [1] https://github.com/sebastianopeluso/radargun/blob/tpcc/framework/src/main... >>>> Overall looks good from a RadarGun integration point of view, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of TPCC, so someone else should comment on how well the code adheres to the spec. >>>> >>>> I've noticed that RadarGun is not up to date with the latest 4.2 Infinispan version and does not have a plugin for Infinispan 5, so I'll update these two pieces. >>>> >>>> I plan to only create one plugin for Infinispan 5, which will contain latest Infinispan 5.1 beta. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>> Thank you again. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Sebastiano >>> >>> >>> -- Galder Zamarreño Sr. Software Engineer Infinispan, JBoss Cache _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev