Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Kafka >> mail # user >> Low latency topics


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Low latency topics
Oops, missed what you said--that you had already dropped the flush
interval. Listen to Neha :-)

-Jay
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
> Currently the broker does not hand out messages to consumers until they
> are flushed to disk, this means the flush interval acts as a lower bound on
> worst case latency. Setting that lower should fix the problem.
>
> This problem has been eliminated in the next release, as both the blocking
> on flush and the fetcher backoff have been eliminated--this should drop
> latency to a few ms.
>
> -Jay
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bob Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We have a low-volume topic (~75msgs/sec) for which we would like to have a
>> low propagation delay from producer to consumer.
>>
>> We have 3 brokers, each with a default of 4 partitions each. for a total
>> of
>> 12 partitions.
>> The producer is sync, without compression. There are 8 producers each
>> producing 1/8 of the traffic.
>> We are using the high-level java consumer, with 4 threads consuming the
>> topic.
>>
>> We are wrapping the message with a custom Encoder/Decoder and record
>> currentTimeMillis() on the sender, and do the same in the receiver, then
>> record the propagation delay. All hosts are time synced with ntp.
>>
>> With the settings on the broker for flush messages and flush interval
>> (unset, defaults to 500 msgs and 3000ms) the overall 95th percentile for
>> propagation is 2,500ms.
>>
>> When we adjust the topic flush interval to 20ms, the 95th percentile drops
>> to 1,700ms
>> When we adjust the consumers "fetcher.backoff.ms" to 10, the 95th
>> percentile drops to about 970ms.
>>
>> We would like this to be sub-500ms.
>> We could run with less partitions and/or more consumer threads.
>>
>> Anything glaring about this config? anything we're missing?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Bob
>>
>
>