kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Neha Narkhede <neha.narkh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Abou Kafka 0.8 producer throughput test
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:09:27 GMT
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