Mailing-List: contact user-help@storm.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@storm.incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of neeleshs@gmail.com designates
 209.85.160.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANNBgPJ8kpvwcEJL-_pfjqUR9LhVLazxta9bWHtZ2OSTOcVmPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CANNBgPJ8kpvwcEJL-_pfjqUR9LhVLazxta9bWHtZ2OSTOcVmPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:10:41 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAJd_F2sZ5wi+jW-MfqVo+SupXaOiFXfQ=1P7JGNNXdiaGhBFTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ACK performance hit & Loggly abandoning Storm
From: Neelesh <neeleshs@gmail.com>
To: user@storm.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134036a6d4c4e04f63fa0a2

--001a1134036a6d4c4e04f63fa0a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Its an interesting read. The blog is vague on some details - with ACK on,
the throughput was 80K/s. With their custom solution its 100K/s. Assuming
they were both deployed on similar hardware (I do not know , the blog does
not confirm either way), the difference is not something that warrants a
custom framework to me. Obviously its working better for Loggly.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Otis Gospodnetic <otis.gospodnetic@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Apparently Loggly decided to ditch Storm when they got hit by the 2.5x
> performance degradation factor after turning on ACKing:
> https://www.loggly.com/what-we-learned-about-scaling-with-apache-storm/
>
> How does one minimize this performance hit?
> Or maybe newer versions of Storm perform better with ACK? (Loggly tested
> 0.82, they say)
>
> Thanks,
> Otis
> --
> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics
> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/
>
>

--001a1134036a6d4c4e04f63fa0a2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Its an interesting read. The blog is vague on some details=
 - with ACK on, the throughput was 80K/s. With their custom solution its 10=
0K/s. Assuming they were both deployed on similar hardware (I do not know ,=
 the blog does not confirm either way), the difference is not something tha=
t warrants a custom framework to me. Obviously its working better for Loggl=
y.=A0</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 4=
, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Otis Gospodnetic <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto=
:otis.gospodnetic@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">otis.gospodnetic@gmail.com</=
a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>Appa=
rently Loggly decided to ditch Storm when they got hit by the 2.5x performa=
nce degradation factor after turning on ACKing:</div>
<div><a href=3D"https://www.loggly.com/what-we-learned-about-scaling-with-a=
pache-storm/" target=3D"_blank">https://www.loggly.com/what-we-learned-abou=
t-scaling-with-apache-storm/</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>How does one minimize this performance hit?</div>=
<div>Or maybe newer versions of Storm perform better with ACK? (Loggly test=
ed 0.82, they say)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,<br clear=3D"all"><div>

Otis<br>--<br>Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics<br>=
Solr &amp; Elasticsearch Support * <a href=3D"http://sematext.com/" target=
=3D"_blank">http://sematext.com/</a></div><div><br></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a1134036a6d4c4e04f63fa0a2--