Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Kafka >> mail # user >> Analysis of producer performance


+
Piotr Kozikowski 2013-04-08, 23:43
+
Jun Rao 2013-04-09, 04:49
+
Guy Doulberg 2013-04-09, 06:34
+
Piotr Kozikowski 2013-04-09, 17:23
+
Otis Gospodnetic 2013-04-10, 19:05
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Analysis of producer performance
Otis,

That's actually a question we are trying to answer. In our current
production system, Scribe does spooling to local disk, so each producer
node becomes a local broker until the actual brokers are able to receive
all messages again. It looks like unless a similar feature is added to
Kafka we will have to come up with our own spooling system.

-Piotr

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Otis Gospodnetic <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is there anything one can do to "defend" from:
>
> "Trying to push more data than the brokers can handle for any sustained
> period of time has catastrophic consequences, regardless of what timeout
> settings are used. In our use case this means that we need to either ensure
> we have spare capacity for spikes, or use something on top of Kafka to
> absorb spikes."
>
> ?
> Thanks,
> Otis
> ----
> Performance Monitoring for Solr / ElasticSearch / HBase -
> http://sematext.com/spm
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Piotr Kozikowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 1:23 PM
> >Subject: Re: Analysis of producer performance
> >
> >Jun,
> >
> >Thank you for your comments. I'll reply point by point for clarity.
> >
> >1. We were aware of the migration tool but since we haven't used Kafka for
> >production yet we just started using the 0.8 version directly.
> >
> >2. I hadn't seen those particular slides, very interesting. I'm not sure
> >we're testing the same thing though. In our case we vary the number of
> >physical machines, but each one has 10 threads accessing a pool of Kafka
> >producer objects and in theory a single machine is enough to saturate the
> >brokers (which our test mostly confirms). Also, assuming that the slides
> >are based on the built-in producer performance tool, I know that we
> started
> >getting very different numbers once we switched to use "real" (actual
> >production log) messages. Compression may also be a factor in case it
> >wasn't configured the same way in those tests.
> >
> >3. In the latency section, there are two tests, one for average and
> another
> >for maximum latency. Each one has two graphs presenting the exact same
> data
> >but at different levels of zoom. The first one is to observe small
> >variations of latency when target throughput <= actual throughput. The
> >second is to observe the overall shape of the graph once latency starts
> >growing when target throughput > actual throughput. I hope that makes
> sense.
> >
> >4. That sounds great, looking forward to it.
> >
> >Piotr
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Jun Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Piotr,
> >>
> >> Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting and useful study. A few
> comments:
> >>
> >> 1. For existing 0.7 users, we have a migration tool that mirrors data
> from
> >> an 0.7 cluster to an 0.8 cluster. Applications can upgrade to 0.8 by
> >> upgrading consumers first, followed by producers.
> >>
> >> 2. Have you looked at the Kafka ApacheCon slides (
> >> http://www.slideshare.net/junrao/kafka-replication-apachecon2013)?
> Towards
> >> the end, there are some performance numbers too. The figure for
> throughput
> >> vs #producer is different from what you have. Not sure if this is
> because
> >> that you have turned on compression.
> >>
> >> 3. Not sure that I understand the difference btw the first 2 graphs in
> the
> >> latency section. What's different btw the 2 tests?
> >>
> >> 4. Post 0.8, we plan to improve the producer side throughput by
> >> implementing non-blocking socket on the client side.
> >>
> >> Jun
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Piotr Kozikowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > At LiveRamp we are considering replacing Scribe with Kafka, and as a
> >> first
> >> > step we run some tests to evaluate producer performance. You can find
> our
> >> > preliminary results here:
> >> >
> https://blog.liveramp.com/2013/04/08/kafka-0-8-producer-performance-2/.

 
+
Yiu Wing TSANG 2013-04-11, 02:47
+
Jun Rao 2013-04-11, 05:18
+
Piotr Kozikowski 2013-04-12, 00:46
+
Jun Rao 2013-04-12, 14:54
+
Piotr Kozikowski 2013-04-12, 23:09
+
Jun Rao 2013-04-15, 01:06
+
Philip OToole 2013-04-12, 15:22
+
S Ahmed 2013-04-12, 15:28
+
Philip OToole 2013-04-12, 15:59
+
Philip OToole 2013-04-12, 17:04
+
Piotr Kozikowski 2013-04-15, 18:19
+
David Arthur 2013-04-23, 12:22
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB