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

[Dan Berindei]

This is weird, I would have expected problems with the last message, but
not in the middle of the sequence (that's why I suggested sending only 1
message). Maybe we need an an even lower max_credits...

Merry Christmas to you, too!

Dan
On 21 Dec 2012 16:41, "Radim Vansa" <rvansa at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> I have ran the test on 4 nodes in hyperion (just for the start to see how
> it will behave) but with 100 messages (1 message is nothing for a
> statistician) each 10MB and I see a weird behaviour - there are about 5-10
> messages received in a fast succession and then the nothing is received for
> several seconds. I experience this behaviour for both 200k and 500k
> credits. Is this really how it should perform?
>
> Merry Christmas and tons of snow :)
>
> Radim
>
> <h1>☃</h1>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Dan Berindei" <dan.berindei at gmail.com>
> | To: "infinispan -Dev List" <infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> | Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:57:08 AM
> | Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default config
> |
> |
> | Hi Radim
> |
> | If you run the test with only 2 nodes and FC disabled, it's going to
> | perform even better. But then as you increase the number of nodes,
> | the speed with no FC will drop dramatically (when we didn't have
> | RSVP enabled, with only 3 nodes, it didn't manage to send 1 x 10MB
> | message in 10 minutes).
> |
> | Please run the tests with as many nodes as possible and just 1
> | message x 10MB. If 500k still performs better, create a JIRA to
> | change the default.
> |
> | Cheers
> | Dan
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Radim Vansa < rvansa at redhat.com >
> | wrote:
> |
> |
> | Sorry I haven't specified the amount, I am a stupido... my tests are
> | working with 500k credits.
> |
> | UUPerf (JGroups 3.2.4.Final-redhat-1) from one computer in perflab to
> | another, 2 threads (default), 1000x sends 10MB message (default
> | chunkSize = 10000 * our entry size is usually 1kB) executed 3x
> |
> | 200k: Average of 6.02 requests / sec (60.19MB / sec), 166.13 ms
> | /request (prot=UNICAST2)
> | Average of 5.61 requests / sec (56.09MB / sec), 178.30 ms /request
> | (prot=UNICAST2)
> | Average of 5.49 requests / sec (54.94MB / sec), 182.03 ms /request
> | (prot=UNICAST2)
> |
> | 500k: Average of 7.93 requests / sec (79.34MB / sec), 126.04 ms
> | /request (prot=UNICAST2)
> | Average of 8.18 requests / sec (81.82MB / sec), 122.23 ms /request
> | (prot=UNICAST2)
> | Average of 8.41 requests / sec (84.09MB / sec), 118.92 ms /request
> | (prot=UNICAST2)
> |
> | Can you also reproduce such results? I think that suggests that 500k
> | behaves really better.
> |
> | Radun
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | | From: "Dan Berindei" < dan.berindei at gmail.com >
> | | To: "infinispan -Dev List" < infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org >
> | | Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:43:37 PM
> | | Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] MFC/UFC credits in default config
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | | On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Bela Ban < bban at redhat.com >
> | | wrote:
> | |
> | |
> | | Dan reduced those values to 200K, IIRC it was for UUPerfwhich
> | | behaved
> | | best with 200K. Idon't know if this is still needed. Dan ?
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | | I haven't run UUPerf in a while...
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | | On 12/17/12 12:19 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
> | | > Hi,
> | | >
> | | > recently I have synchronized our jgroups configuration with the
> | | > default one shipped with Infinispan
> | | > (core/src/main/resources/jgroups-(tcp|udp).xml) and it has shown
> | | > that 200k credits in UFC/MFC (I keep the two values in sync) is
> | | > not enough even for our smallest resilience test (killing one of
> | | > four nodes). The state transfer was often blocked when requesting
> | | > for more credits which resulted in not completing it within the
> | | > time limit.
> | | > Therefore, I'd like to suggest to increase the amount of credits
> | | > in
> | | > default configuration as well, because we simply cannot use the
> | | > lower setting and it's preferable to have the configurations as
> | | > close as possible. The only settings we need to keep different
> | | > are
> | | > thread pool sizes and addresses and ports.
> | | >
> | |
> | |
> | | What value would you like to use instead?
> | |
> | | Can you try UUPerf with 200k and your proposed configuration and
> | | compare the results?
> | |
> | | Cheers
> | | Dan
> | |
> | |
> |
> |
> | | _______________________________________________
> | | infinispan-dev mailing list
> | | infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> | _______________________________________________
> | infinispan-dev mailing list
> | infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> |
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | infinispan-dev mailing list
> | infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20121224/97739b27/attachment.html