[infinispan-dev] benchmarking 5.1 vs 5.0

[Galder Zamarreño]

On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Now that all the 5.1 major work is done I plan to run some benchmarks comparing 5.1 with 5.0. It's not only tx stuff I'd like to compare, as some other were made, so here's my plan of action.
> 
> Each of the following benchmarks will be run on local, distributed and replicated caches:
> 
> 1. non transactional: web session replication[1]
> 2. transactional (both optimistic and pessimistic): web session replication[2]
> 3. transactional (both optimistic and pessimistic): tpcc [3]
> 
> The difference between 2 and 3 is the fact that 3 induces some key contention between transactions. 
> 
> Any other suggestion for benchmarking?

Could it be interesting to see what the autoCommit penalty is? i.e. comparing: non-transactional cache vs transactional cache with autoCommit

Assuming that there's no transactions managed, each cache write operation would be a transaction with autoCommit. 

When does it make sense to use autoCommit? Maybe if the cache has to participate in a tx, even if it's a single operation, with another resource, i.e. a database? If so, what's the penalty?

> 
> Cheers,
> Mircea
> 
> [1] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/WebSessionBenchmark
> [2] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/radargun/wiki/BenchmarkingTransactions
> [3] tpcc is Radargun extension developed by Sebastiano Peluso from the CloudTM team. It's now integrated in Radargun, I'm working on adding some documentation around it atm.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache