Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-storm-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-storm-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97117106A9 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 44446 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2014 15:26:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-storm-user-archive@storm.apache.org Received: (qmail 44137 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2014 15:26:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@storm.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@storm.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@storm.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 44107 invoked by uid 99); 4 Apr 2014 15:26:44 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:26:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of otis.gospodnetic@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.52] (HELO mail-qa0-f52.google.com) (209.85.216.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:26:39 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id m5so3314958qaj.11 for ; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:26:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=1tmuXeGryDxe7OwA2GuBn/q1Wut3uLhw1n/1WARG5Oo=; b=SaN3HWhR1pZbqZqnEGbOYbX4vM4f181Og8uy+Hr9VUEpRneTGR5dJNrZo/J9DBlqH/ 3tC7OPoQ/ZDAualyQN6luAGpOLDLQhi1vW4srTPlTrcxetAaRT9sK9GkUEcYddYryybF KR0+whP32SCdX/hFfX/FJg35NziooVrhSFkP8JgPxg3v01yWG9rxBLfzXNtNWltqFIFZ hS+crzQ3pScjHxcermgTAxj9OL9q1CjjQzWDRgQZl5vpaQv2oHlhIZ24URfilSGNnk4A 1scLS+HsX1DoLjpbe6XXxbSrE491AQBHrSXgeYZ77jSSD4PDDkrbZKbowEnCQ8R1MuIr Av2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.31.6 with SMTP id e6mr3039037qge.101.1396625177558; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.79.200 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:26:17 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: ACK performance hit & Loggly abandoning Storm From: Otis Gospodnetic To: user@storm.incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a9d5297c5b704f63923bf X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a113a9d5297c5b704f63923bf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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/ --001a113a9d5297c5b704f63923bf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Apparently Loggly decided to ditch = Storm when they got hit by the 2.5x performance degradation factor after tu= rning 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 test= ed 0.82, they say)

Thanks,

Otis
--
Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics
= Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/

--001a113a9d5297c5b704f63923bf--