Re: [jgroups-dev] [javagroups-users] New flow control protocols
Vladimir Blagojevic <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.javagroups.devel,gmane.comp.java.javagroups.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Yeah, I'd say 2.10 at least. I am not sure if others as well. Lets hear it from the users :) I am betting that some of them experiment with multiple branches and would like to use similar if not the same configuration file across branches. Cheers On 2010-09-13, at 1:47 PM, Bela Ban wrote: > Which branches, 2.10 ? > > Vladimir Blagojevic wrote: >> Excellent! Should these be ported to previous maintained branches? It would certainly make life easier for users who are using/experimenting with a few branches in development/production. >> >> Cheers, >> Vladimir >> >> On 2010-09-10, at 5:40 PM, Bela Ban wrote: >> >> >>> FYI, >>> >>> I've added 2 new flow control protocols: MFC (Multicast Flow Control) >>> and UFC (Unicast Flow Control). They're an implementation of [1], which >>> is about splitting the FC functionality into 2 separate protocols. >>> >>> The advantages are that this simplifies the code, the code becomes more >>> maintainable, that we can enable unicast or multicast flow control >>> individually, that I could remove some coarse grained locking, and that >>> I created helper classes, e.g. to manage sender or receiver credits, >>> which can be unit tested individually, apart from the use in the protocol. >>> >>> The downside is that we now have MFC and UFC instead of just FC. >>> >>> My goal for performance was that MFC and UFC should be about the same as >>> FC, but not slower. >>> >>> This morning, I ran a quick perf test [2] on a 4 node cluster, with 4 >>> nodes (all senders) sending 1 million messages (of varying size) each. >>> The numbers are MiBs/sec/node. >>> >>> The numbers for 4 nodes are: >>> >>> Size FC MFC/UFC >>> >>> 1K 135 135 >>> 2K 145 145 >>> 4K 145 145 >>> 8K 130 131 >>> >>> >>> The numbers for 8 nodes are (2 processes per physical box): >>> >>> Size FC MFC/UFC >>> >>> 1K 72 73 >>> 2K 83 85 >>> 4K 87 93 >>> 8K 107 113 >>> >>> >>> As can be seen, performance is about the same, or even slightly better >>> with MFC/UFC when running 2 perf JVMs / physical box. However, the >>> second test on 8 nodes is to be taken with a grain of salt, as the 2 >>> JBMs/box are competing for CPU and the network, and therefore we don't >>> saturate the network (bandwidth)... >>> >>> To use the new folw control protocols, replace >>> >>> <FC max_credits="2M" min_threshold="0.6" /> >>> >>> with >>> >>> <UFC max_credits="2M" min_threshold="0.6" /> >>> <MFC max_credits="2M" min_threshold="0.6" /> >>> >>> I will change the configs shipped with JGroups after some more testing >>> and updating the documentation. >>> >>> >>> [1] https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1154 >>> >>> [2] http://community.jboss.org/docs/DOC-11594 >>> >>> -- >>> Bela Ban >>> Lead JGroups / Clustering Team >>> JBoss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Vladimir Blagojevic >> JBoss Clustering Team >> JBoss, by Red Hat >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Bela Ban > Lead JGroups / Clustering Team > JBoss > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > accelerate your shift to cloud computing > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > javagroups-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javagroups-users -- Vladimir Blagojevic JBoss Clustering Team JBoss, by Red Hat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Javagroups-development mailing list