[infinispan-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-1918) Benchmark UNICAST vs UNICAST2 vs NAKACK2 with JGroups 3.0.x

[Dan Berindei (JIRA)]

     [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1918?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Dan Berindei resolved ISPN-1918.
--------------------------------

    Resolution: Done


Michal ran some tests with and without the ISPN-1881 optimization of sending unicasts instead of multicasts in 2-node clusters, and the unicast version was much better. So that eliminates NAKACK2 from the equation.

UNICAST+FC is better for state transfer, but UNICAST2+FC is much better for smaller messages. So we should pick UNICAST+FC and enable RSVP only for state transfer commands.
                
> Benchmark UNICAST vs UNICAST2 vs NAKACK2 with JGroups 3.0.x
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ISPN-1918
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1918
>             Project: Infinispan
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: RPC
>    Affects Versions: 5.1.2.FINAL
>            Reporter: Dan Berindei
>            Assignee: Dan Berindei
>              Labels: jgroups_tuning
>             Fix For: 5.1.3.CR1, 5.1.3.FINAL
>
>
> Recent changes seem to have brought performance a bit down, so we need to check whether this is caused by reverting to UNICAST instead of UNICAST2 (ISPN-1892).
> Performance has decreased most in the 2-node scenario, where we were actually sending multicasts instead of unicasts. So we need to check whether there is a performance difference between UNICAST2 and NAKACK2 as well.
> If we find UNICAST2 to perform better, we can proceed with ISPN-1879 on the 5.1.x branch as well as on the master branch.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira