zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Camille Fournier <cami...@apache.org>
Subject Re: etcd performance comparison
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:52:05 GMT
Even just writing about what objective tests might look like would be a
good start! I'm happy to read draft posts by anyone who wishes to write on
the topic.

C

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:

> IMO there is tremendous FUD in the etcd world. It's the new cool toy and
> ZK feels old. To suggest that ZK does not do Service Discovery is
> ludicrous. That was one of the very first Curator recipes.
>
> It might be useful to counter this trend objectively. I'd be interested in
> helping. Anyone else? We can create objective tests that compare common use
> cases.
>
> ====================
> Jordan Zimmerman
>
> > On Feb 22, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Camille Fournier <camille@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think that my biggest feeling about this blog post (besides not
> > disclosing the disk setup clearly) is that, ZK is really not designed to
> > have massive write throughput. I would not traditionally recommend
> someone
> > use ZK in that manner. If we think that evolving it to be useful for such
> > workloads would be good, it could be an interesting community discussion,
> > but it's really not the purpose of the system design.
> >
> > I'd love to see a more read/write mixed load test for the systems, as
> well
> > as a blog post about why you might choose different systems for different
> > workloads. I think developers have a hard time really understanding the
> > tradeoffs they are choosing in these systems, because of the nuance
> around
> > them.
> >
> > For me, I'm more concerned about the fact that I saw a talk yesterday
> that
> > mentioned both etcd and consul as options for service discovery but not
> ZK.
> > That feels like a big hit for our community. Orthogonal to this topic,
> just
> > feels worth mentioning.
> >
> > C
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Alexander Binzberger <
> > alexander.binzberger@wingcon.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Seams like it might make sense to increase snapCount for those tests.
> >>
> >> 2. ZK write performance also depends on the number of watches - afaik.
> >> This is not mentioned and not tested.
> >>
> >> 3. Does it really make sense to "blast" the store? Wouldn't it make more
> >> sense to compare fixed write/read per clients rates?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 22.02.2017 um 05:53 schrieb Michael Han:
> >>>
> >>> Kudus to etcd team for making this blog and thanks for sharing.
> >>>
> >>> I feel like they're running a questionable configuration.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Looks like the test configuration
> >>> <https://github.com/coreos/dbtester/blob/89eb8d31addff1d9538
> >>> 235c20878a8637f24608c/agent/agent_zookeeper.go#L29>
> >>> does not have separate directory for transaction logs and snapshots as
> it
> >>> does not have configuration for dataLogDir. So the configuration is not
> >>> optimal. Would be interesting to see the numbers with updated
> >>> configuration.
> >>>
> >>> They mention that ZK snapshots "stop the world", and maybe I'm
> mistaken,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>
> >>>> I didn't think that was right
> >>>
> >>> Right, ZK snapshots does not block processing pipeline as it is fuzzy
> and
> >>> it is done in a separate thread. The warning message "*To busy to snap,
> >>> skipping*" mentioned in the blog is a sign that a snap shot is also
> >>> generating in progress, which could be caused by the write contentions
> >>> created from serializing transaction logs that leads to longer than
> >>> expected snap shot generation. So "stop the world" is a side effect of
> >>> resource contention, but not a design intention IMO.
> >>>
> >>> Also the blog mentions ZooKeeper as a key value store and I also want
> to
> >>> point out that ZooKeeper is more than a (metadata) key value store has
> >>> features such as sessions, ephemerals, and watchers, and these design
> >>> choices were made I believe to make ZK more useful as a coordination
> >>> kernel, and these design choice also (negatively) contribute to the
> >>> performance and scalability of ZooKeeper.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Dan Benediktson <
> >>> dbenediktson@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I kind of wonder about them only using one disk. I haven't experimented
> >>>> with this in ZooKeeper, nor have I ever been a DBA, but with
> traditional
> >>>> database systems (which ZooKeeper should be basically identical to,
in
> >>>> this
> >>>> regard), it's a pretty common recommendation to put snapshots and
> TxLogs
> >>>> on
> >>>> different drives, for the obvious reason of avoiding one of the
> biggest
> >>>> problems laid out in that blog post: when snapshot happens, it
> contends
> >>>> with your log flushes, causing write latencies to explode. Suddenly
> you
> >>>> have tons more IO, and where it used to be nicely sequential, now it's
> >>>> heavily randomized because of the two competing writers. It's kind of
> the
> >>>> nature of benchmarks that there's always something you can nitpick,
> but
> >>>> still, I feel like they're running a questionable configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> They mention that ZK snapshots "stop the world", and maybe I'm
> mistaken,
> >>>> but I didn't think that was right - I thought they were just slowing
> >>>> everything down because they write a lot and contend a lot. I'm pretty
> >>>> sure
> >>>> ZK snapshots are fuzzy over a range of transactions, and transactions
> >>>> keep
> >>>> applying during the snapshot, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Dan
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Benjamin Mahler <
> bmahler@mesosphere.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm curious if folks here have seen the following write performance
> >>>>> comparison that was done by CoreOS on etc, Consul, and ZooKeeper:
> >>>>> https://coreos.com/blog/performance-of-etcd.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like performance comparison of reads and updates are coming
> next.
> >>>>> Are there any thoughts from folks here on this comparison so far?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Ben
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> --
> >> Alexander Binzberger
> >> System Designer - WINGcon AG
> >> Tel. +49 7543 966-119
> >>
> >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Langenargen
> >> Registergericht: ULM, HRB 734260
> >> USt-Id.: DE232931635, WEEE-Id.: DE74015979
> >> Vorstand: thomasThomas Ehrle (Vorsitz), Fritz R. Paul (Stellvertreter),
> >> Tobias Treß
> >> Aufsichtsrat: Jürgen Maucher (Vorsitz), Andreas Paul (Stellvertreter),
> >> Martin Sauter
> >>
> >>
>

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