Jan Van Besien 2013-11-14, 08:50
Brock Noland 2013-11-14, 16:07
Jan Van Besien 2013-11-13, 09:32
Brock Noland 2013-11-13, 14:03
Sorry it took me a while to answer this. I compiled a small test case
using only off the shelve flume components that shows what is going on.
The setup is a single agent with http source, null sink and file
channel. I am using the default configuration as much as possible.
The test goes as follows:
- start the agent without sink
- run a script that sends http requests in multiple threads to the http
source (the script simply calls the url http://localhost:8080/?key=value
over and over a gain, whereby value is a random string of 100 chars).
- this script does about 100 requests per second on my machine. I leave
it running for a while, such that the file channel contains about 20000
- add the null sink to the configuration (around 11:14:33 in the log).
- observe the logging of the null sink. You'll see in the log file that
it takes more than 10 seconds per 1000 events (until about even 5000,
- stop the http request generating script (i.e. no more writing in file
- observer the logging of the null sink: events 5000 until 20000 are all
processed within a few seconds.
In the attachment:
- flume log
- thread dumps while the ingest was running and the null sink was enabled
- config (agent1.conf)
I also tried with more sinks (4), see agent2.conf. The results are the same.
Thanks for looking into this,
On 11/14/2013 05:08 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Jan Van Besien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 03:04 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
> > The file channel uses a WAL which sits on disk. Each time an
> event is
> > committed an fsync is called to ensure that data is durable. Without
> > this fsync there is no durability guarantee. More details here:
> > https://blogs.apache.org/flume/entry/apache_flume_filechannel
> Yes indeed. I was just not expecting the performance impact to be
> that big.
> > The issue is that when the source is committing one-by-one it's
> > consuming the disk doing an fsync for each event. I would find a
> way to
> > batch up the requests so they are not written one-by-one or use
> > disks for the file channel.
> I am already using multiple disks for the channel (4).
> Can you share your configuration?
> Batching the
> requests is indeed what I am doing to prevent the filechannel to be the
> bottleneck (using a flume agent with a memory channel in front of the
> agent with the file channel), but it inheritely means that I loose
> end-to-end durability because events are buffered in memory before being
> flushed to disk.
> I would be curious to know though if you doubled the sinks if that would
> give more time to readers. Could you take three-four thread dumps of the
> JVM while it's in this state and share them?
Brock Noland 2013-12-17, 17:51
Jan Van Besien 2013-11-18, 13:21
Jan Van Besien 2013-11-25, 08:46
Shangan Chen 2013-12-17, 12:27
Brock Noland 2013-12-17, 12:54
Shangan Chen 2013-12-17, 15:32
Brock Noland 2013-12-17, 16:13
Hari Shreedharan 2013-12-17, 17:11