Return-Path: 
 <user-return-7855-apmail-zookeeper-user-archive=zookeeper.apache.org@zookeeper.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9968511484
	for <apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:18:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 4772 invoked by uid 500); 14 Aug 2014 17:18:55 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org
Received: (qmail 4725 invoked by uid 500); 14 Aug 2014 17:18:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@zookeeper.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@zookeeper.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@zookeeper.apache.org>
List-Id: <user.zookeeper.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list user@zookeeper.apache.org
Received: (qmail 4713 invoked by uid 99); 14 Aug 2014 17:18:54 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:18:54 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mudit.f2004912@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender)
Received: from [74.125.82.51] (HELO mail-wg0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:18:49 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b13so1386421wgh.22
        for <user@zookeeper.apache.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :message-id:references:to;
        bh=y8fLWr9KQ/rmFHMFT4wrFiwv+et1obLX6Pj95b2pjQI=;
        b=Mxn6duypcvpCiSSmI8xuQ2YV3HPlsZuo9UeQ8dDO7ykTz305Jtch2WIovjUJ3DLKRQ
         9qJLNzHYfiUPUcRj6/sHhzpwaNDBn0L/Qa2v8+HmTKke2/O7YV32CsMyzHysRgz4+UBt
         HWOkKmGgVpO9+k+1ExUcdEt1qx0aRGbyxO51NY9xYofvYCr40Tyrq9EMZGwqIVg/mAYV
         G+4F4bsAdFWkH02H9HDwixBxNmcT92jdg8Xu0Qpajs+bZa64VMgVFScj300gI0NT/zOh
         x29gshNk+FEMkbvA9+xfV9a0QzVJ1ZJExqw584PmhT3cmWuHopRq0qCVn9rYkcKwrdjM
         hk/Q==
X-Received: by 10.194.78.100 with SMTP id a4mr11915495wjx.106.1408036707927;
        Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.1] (ivr94-1-81-57-178-96.fbx.proxad.net.
 [81.57.178.96])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
 w6sm12672535wjq.39.2014.08.14.10.18.26
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_0D749E69-9131-49B6-B681-8E129280B638"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Write throughput is low !!
From: Mudit Verma <mudit.f2004912@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <etPan.53ecdf4f.57fc4fbb.b298@Jordans-MacBook-Pro.local>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:18:22 +0200
Cc: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Message-Id: <66DE5245-9012-47AB-9C65-A2AFD84BCD73@gmail.com>
References: <14892FE1-A1E9-43D4-B383-678F881B4F4F@gmail.com>
 <etPan.53ecdf4f.57fc4fbb.b298@Jordans-MacBook-Pro.local>
To: Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--Apple-Mail=_0D749E69-9131-49B6-B681-8E129280B638
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

Thanks.=20

We are building a dedicated locking infra, something like Chubby, which =
should be able to synchronise requests from 10,000 of clients, =
simultaneously accessing shared backend storage. On each access client =
should first be able to get a lock.=20

Thanks
Mudit

On 14 Aug 2014, at 06:09 pm, Jordan Zimmerman =
<jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:

> Here is the standard graph of ZK tps:
>=20
> http://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.1.2/images/zkperfRW.jpg
>=20
> If you are doing 100% writes with 5 ZK instances, 5K tps sounds right. =
You can get more tps if you switch to 3 instances. The real question, =
though, is why are you doing so many writes?
>=20
> -Jordan
>=20
>=20
> From: Mudit Verma <mudit.f2004912@gmail.com>
> Reply: user@zookeeper.apache.org <user@zookeeper.apache.org>>
> Date: August 14, 2014 at 10:50:53 AM
> To: user@zookeeper.apache.org <user@zookeeper.apache.org>>
> Subject:  Write throughput is low !!=20
>=20
>> Hi All,=20
>>=20
>> We, at our company, have a modest Zookeeper lab setup with 5 servers.=20=

>>=20
>> During our lab tests, we found that somehow we can not go beyond 5K =
Writes/Sec in total with roughly 100 clients (all the clients issues =
writes to different znodes in a tight loop). Can someone point me to the =
official numbers? Is this a good number for Zookeeper or it can scale =
much beyond?=20
>>=20
>> I understand that, parallelization by writing to different znodes =
will not increase the throughput as there is only one log underneath.=20
>>=20
>> PS: Lab is hosted on a high speed network (1gigbit/sec) and network =
latencies are far lower in contract to the the numbers we have.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Thanks=20
>> Mudit


--Apple-Mail=_0D749E69-9131-49B6-B681-8E129280B638--