kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From S Ahmed <sahmed1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Abou Kafka 0.8 producer throughput test
Date Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:42:25 GMT
producer.num.acks=-1 means what sorry? is it that all replica's are written
too?


On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Neha Narkhede <neha.narkhede@gmail.com>wrote:

> Looks like Jun's email didn't format the output properly. I've published
> some preliminary producer throughput performance numbers on our performance
> wiki -
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Performance+testing#Performancetesting-Producerthroughput
>
> These tests measure producer throughput in the worst case scenario
> (producer.num.acks=-1) i.e. max durability setting. The baseline with 0.7
> would be to compare producer throughput with num.acks=0. We are working on
> those tests now.
>
> Thanks,
> Neha
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Jun Rao <junrao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We also did some perf test on 0.8 using the following command. All
> configs
> > on the broker are the defaults.
> > bin/kafka-run-class.sh kafka.perf.ProducerPerformance --broker-list
> > localhost:9092 --initial-message-id 0 --messages 2000000 --topics
> topic_001
> > --request-num-acks -1 --batch-size 100 --threads 1 --message-size 1024
> > --compression-codec 0
> >
> > The following is our preliminary result. Could you try this on your
> > environment? For replication factor larger than 1, we will try ack=1 and
> > report the numbers later. It should provide better throughput. Thanks,
> >
> > *No. of Brokers = 1 / Replication Factor = 1 (Partition = 1)**Producer
> > threads**comp**msg size**Acks**batch**Thru Put
> > (MB/s)*101024-115.49201024-11
> > 9.38501024-1116.611001024-1119.54101024-15025.72201024-15039.25501024-150
> >
> >
> 54.171001024-15056.71101024-110027.97201024-110045.05501024-110058.011001024
> > -110059.82*No. of Brokers = 2 / Replication Factor = 2 (Partitions =
> > 1)**Producer
> > threads**comp**msg size**Acks**batch**Thru Put
> > (MB/s)*101024-110.58201024-11
> >
> 1.17501024-111.601001024-113.15101024-1507.48201024-15013.89501024-15018.11
> >
> 1001024-15020.91101024-11008.72201024-110016.84501024-110020.661001024-1100
> > 23.82*No. of Brokers = 3 / Replication Factor = 3 (Partitions =
> > 1)**Producer
> > threads**comp**msg size**Acks**batch**Thru Put
> > (MB/s)*101024-110.53201024-11
> >
> 0.94501024-111.721001024-112.78101024-1507.08201024-15013.40501024-15018.11
> >
> 1001024-15021.01101024-11008.09201024-110014.88501024-110019.931001024-1100
> > 23.22
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jun
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Jun Guo -X (jungu - CIIC at Cisco) <
> > jungu@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > >  Hi,****
> > >
> > >       I do producer(Kafka 0.8) throughput test many times. But the
> > > average value is 3MB/S. Below is my test environment:****
> > >
> > >        CPU core      :16 ****
> > >
> > >        Vendor_id     :GenuineIntel****
> > >
> > >        Cpu family     :6****
> > >
> > >        Cpu MHz      :2899.999****
> > >
> > >        Cache size    :20480 KB****
> > >
> > >        Cpu level      :13****
> > >
> > >        MEM             :16330832KB=15.57GB****
> > >
> > >        Disk       : RAID5****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > >        I don’t know the detail information about the disk, such as
> > > rotation. But I do some test about the I/O performance of the disk. The
> > > write rate is 500MB~600MB/S, the read rate is 180MB/S. The detail is as
> > > below. ****
> > >
> > > [image: cid:image002.png@01CDF4AE.52046900]****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > And I adjust the broker configuration file as the official document
> says
> > > as below. And I adjust the JVM to 5120MB. ****
> > >
> > > I run producer performance test with the script
> > > kafka-producer-perf-test.sh, with the test command is ****
> > >
> > > *bin/kafka-producer-perf-test.sh --broker-list 10.75.167.46:49092
> --topics
> > topic_perf_46_1,topic_perf_46_2,topic_perf_46_3,topic_perf_46_4,
> > > topic_perf_46_5,topic_perf_46_6,
> > > topic_perf_46_7,topic_perf_46_8,topic_perf_46_9,topic_perf_46_10
> > > --initial-message-id 0 --threads 200 --messages 1000000 --message-size
> > 200
> > > --compression-codec 1*
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > But the test result is also not as good as the official document
> > > says(50MB/S, and that value in your paper is 100MB/S). The test result
> is
> > > as below:****
> > >
> > > 2013-01-17 04:15:24:768, 2013-01-17 04:25:01:637, 0, 200, 200,
> 1907.35, *
> > > 3.3064,* 10000000, 17334.9582****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I do consumer throughput test, the result is about
> > > 60MB/S while that value in official document is 100MB/S.****
> > >
> > > I really don’t know why?****
> > >
> > > You know high throughput is one of the most important features of
> Kafka.
> > > So I am really concerned with it.****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > Thanks and best regards!****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > *From:* Jay Kreps [mailto:jkreps@linkedin.com]
> > > *Sent:* 2013年1月16日 2:22
> > > *To:* Jun Guo -X (jungu - CIIC at Cisco)
> > > *Subject:* RE: About acknowledge from broker to producer in your
> > paper.***
> > > *
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > Not sure which version you are using... ****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > In 0.7 this would happen only if there was a socket level error (i.e.
> > > can't connect to the host). This covers a lot of cases since in the
> event
> > > of I/O errors (disk full, etc) we just have that node shut itself down
> to
> > > let others take over.****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > In 0.8 we send all errors back to the client.****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > So the difference is that, for example, in the event of a disk error,
> in
> > > 0.7 the client would send a message, the broker would get an error and
> > > shoot itself in the head and disconnect its clients, and the client
> would
> > > get the error the next time it tried to send a message. So in 0.7 the
> > error
> > > might not get passed back to the client until the second message send.
> In
> > > 0.8 this would happen with the first send, which is an improvement.****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > >
> > > -Jay****
> > >  ------------------------------
> > >
> > > *From:* Jun Guo -X (jungu - CIIC at Cisco) [jungu@cisco.com]
> > > *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2013 9:45 PM
> > > *To:* Jay Kreps
> > > *Subject:* About acknowledge from broker to producer in your paper.****
> > >
> > > Hi,****
> > >
> > >        I have read your paper *Kafka: a Distributed Messaging System
> for
> > > Log Processing* .****
> > >
> > >        In experimental results part. There are some words as below:****
> > >
> > >        ****
> > >
> > >        *There are a few reasons why Kafka performed much better. First,
> > > the Kafka producer currently doesn**’t wait for acknowledgements from
> the
> > > broker and sends messages as faster as the broker can handle. This
> > > significantly increased the throughput of the publisher. With a batch
> > size
> > > of 50, a single Kafka producer almost saturated the 1Gb link between
> the
> > > producer and the broker. This is a valid optimization for the log
> > > aggregation case, as data must be sent asynchronously to avoid
> > introducing
> > > any latency into the live serving of traffic. We note that without
> > > acknowledging the producer, there is no guarantee that every published
> > > message is actually received by the broker. For many types of log data,
> > it
> > > is desirable to trade durability for throughput, as long as the number
> of
> > > dropped messages is relatively small. However, we do plan to*****
> > >
> > > *address the durability issue for more critical data in the
> future.*****
> > >
> > >  ****
> > >
> > >        But I have done a series of test. I found that ,if I shut down
> all
> > > the brokers, when I send a message from producer to broker, the
> producer
> > > will report kafka.common.FailedToSendMessageException . It says, Failed
> > to
> > > send messages after 3 tries.****
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > >        If there is no acknowledge from broker, how the producer find
> the
> > > sending is failed? And how it try 3 times?****
> > >
> > >  ****
> > >
> > >        Maybe, the acknowledge in your paper refers to another thing, if
> > so
> > > ,please tell what is the meaning of acknowledge?****
> > >
> > >  ****
> > >
> > >        Many thanks and best regards!****
> > >
> > >  ****
> > >
> > > Guo Jun****
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message