kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ben Stopford (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (KAFKA-2486) New consumer performance
Date Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:51:46 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2486?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14719295#comment-14719295

Ben Stopford commented on KAFKA-2486:

The mail thread refers to the user of ConsumerPerformance. This in turn uses poll(100), as
is suggested in our docs. 

I'm unclear as to whether this is a bug in the use of the API in ConsumerPerformance or a
bug in the API itself.

The current behaviour is to sleep the timeout period on every poll if  (server fetch time)
> (an iteration of the client's record processing loop). That's to say, we implement prefetching,
but it's quite likely that the result won't be back in time if the client isn't making an
independent network call or doing some pretty time consuming processing. 

Should we be waking the sleeping client thread when the pre-fetch returns results? 

> New consumer performance
> ------------------------
>                 Key: KAFKA-2486
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2486
>             Project: Kafka
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: consumer
>            Reporter: Ewen Cheslack-Postava
>            Assignee: Jason Gustafson
>             Fix For: 0.8.3
> The new consumer was previously reaching getting good performance. However, a recent
report on the mailing list indicates it's dropped significantly. After evaluation, even with
a local broker it seems to only be reaching a 2-10MB/s, compared to 600+MB/s previously. Before
release, we should get the performance back on par.
> Some details about where the regression occurred from the mailing list http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/kafka-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAAdKFaE8bPSeWZf%2BF9RuA-xZazRpBrZG6vo454QLVHBAk_VOJg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> bq. At 49026f11781181c38e9d5edb634be9d27245c961 (May 14th), we went from good performance
-> an error due to broker apparently not accepting the partition assignment strategy. Since
this commit seems to add heartbeats and the server side code for partition assignment strategies,
I assume we were missing something on the client side and by filling in the server side, things
stopped working.
> bq. On either 84636272422b6379d57d4c5ef68b156edc1c67f8 or a5b11886df8c7aad0548efd2c7c3dbc579232f03
(July 17th), I am able to run the perf test again, but it's slow -- ~10MB/s for me vs the
2MB/s Jay was seeing, but that's still far less than the 600MB/s I saw on the earlier commits.
> Ideally we would also at least have a system test in place for the new consumer, even
if regressions weren't automatically detected. It would at least allow for manually checking
for regressions. This should not be difficult since there are already old consumer performance

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message