Thanks Joe, We are just trying to get a sense of load.
Out of interest, given the work to spread the other repo across disks, is there a reason why the FF repo isn’t split-able? Seems like that is going to be our bottleneck going forward Cheers, Phil Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Joe Witt Sent: Friday, 14 September 2018 1:37 PM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: Ideal hardware for NiFi The ff disk needs to be the quickest disk and should have no other contention just like a db trans log would request. The prov repo should also have its pwn disk. The content repo can have one or more physical disks. The best case is each repo is on physically separate disks/underlying storage. Not always an option i realize but for maximize performance it matters. then its about proper config and optimal flow design. Its ok if your ff repo disk is always busy...thats a good thing. If iostat shows always 100% usage then prob things arent ideal. thanks On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 9:16 PM Phil H <gippyp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi joe, > > I moved the content and providence repositories off to two new disks, but > it seems like the vast majority of the writes are still occurring on the > disk where the flowfile and database repositories are. I note they don't > appear to be able to be split across disks in the same way? > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 12:37, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > if they are physically seperate the diff should be quite noticable. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 7:36 PM Phil H <gippyp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Potentially. We're looking to see how the multiple disks help before > > > committing to spending money on new hardware :) > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 10:48, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > phil, > > > > > > > > as you add dirs it will just start using them. if you want to no > > longer > > > > use the current dir it might be more involved. > > > > > > > > does that help? > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:36 PM Phil H <gippyp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Follow up question - how do I transition to this new structure? > > Should > > > I > > > > > shut down NiFi and move the contents of the legacy single > directories > > > > into > > > > > one of the new ones? For example: > > > > > > > > > > mv /usr/nifi/content_repository > > > > > /nifi/repos/content-1 > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 06:15, Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Phil, > > > > > > > > > > > > For the content repository, you can configure the directory by > > > changing > > > > > > the value of > > > > > > the "nifi.content.repository.directory.default" property in > > > > > > nifi.properties. The suffix here, > > > > > > "default" is the name of this "container". You can have multiple > > > > > > containers by adding extra > > > > > > properties. So, for example, you could set: > > > > > > > > > > > > nifi.content.repository.directory.content1= > > > > > > /nifi/repos/content-1 > > > > > > > > > > > > nifi.content.repository.directory.content2=/nifi/repos/content-2 > > > > > > nifi.content.repository.directory.content3=/nifi/repos/content-3 > > > > > > nifi.content.repository.directory.content4=/nifi/repos/content-4 > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly, the Provenance Repo property is named > > > > > > "nifi.provenance.repository.directory.default" > > > > > > and can have any number of "containers": > > > > > > > > > > > > nifi.provenance.repository.directory.prov1=/nifi/repos/prov-1 > > > > > > nifi.provenance.repository.directory.prov2=/nifi/repos/prov-2 > > > > > > nifi.provenance.repository.directory.prov3=/nifi/repos/prov-3 > > > > > > nifi.provenance.repository.directory.prov4=/nifi/repos/prov-4 > > > > > > > > > > > > When NiFi writes to these, it does a Round Robin so that if > you're > > > > > writing > > > > > > to 4 Flow Files' > > > > > > content simultaneously with different threads, you're able to get > > the > > > > > full > > > > > > throughput of each > > > > > > disk. (So if you have 4 disks for your content repo, each capable > > of > > > > > > writing 100 MB/sec, then > > > > > > your effective write rate to the content repo is 400 MB/sec). > > Similar > > > > > with > > > > > > Provenance Repository. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doing this also will allow you to hold a larger 'archive' of > > content > > > > and > > > > > > provenance data, because > > > > > > it will span the archive across all of the listed directories, as > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 2018, at 3:35 PM, Phil H <gippyp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mark, this is great advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Disk access is certainly an issue with the current set up. I > will > > > > > > certainly > > > > > > > shoot for NVMe disks in the build. How does NiFi get configured > > to > > > > span > > > > > > > it's repositories across multiple physical disks? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 01:32, Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Phil, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> As Sivaprasanna mentioned, your bottleneck will certainly > depend > > > on > > > > > your > > > > > > >> flow. > > > > > > >> There's nothing inherent about NiFi or the JVM, AFAIK that > would > > > > limit > > > > > > >> you. I've > > > > > > >> seen NiFi run on VM's containing 4-8 cores, and I've seen it > run > > > on > > > > > bare > > > > > > >> metal > > > > > > >> on servers containing 96+ cores. Most often, I see people > with a > > > lot > > > > > of > > > > > > >> CPU cores > > > > > > >> but insufficient disk, so if you're running several cores > ensure > > > > that > > > > > > >> you're using > > > > > > >> SSD's / NVMe's or enough spinning disks to accommodate the > flow. > > > > NiFi > > > > > > does > > > > > > >> a good > > > > > > >> job of spanning the content and FlowFile repositories across > > > > multiple > > > > > > >> disks to take > > > > > > >> full advantage of the hardware, and scales the CPU vertically > by > > > way > > > > > of > > > > > > >> multiple > > > > > > >> Processors and multiple concurrent tasks (threads) on a given > > > > > Processor. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It really comes down to what you're doing in your flow, > though. > > If > > > > > > you've > > > > > > >> got 96 cores and > > > > > > >> you're trying to perform 5 dozen transformations against a > large > > > > > number > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> FlowFiles > > > > > > >> but have only a single spinning disk, then those 96 cores will > > > > likely > > > > > go > > > > > > >> to waste, because > > > > > > >> your disk will bottleneck you. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Likewise, if you have 10 SSD's and only 8 cores you're likely > > > going > > > > to > > > > > > >> waste a lot of > > > > > > >> disk because you won't have the CPU needed to reach the disks' > > > full > > > > > > >> potential. > > > > > > >> So you'll need to strike the correct balance for your use > > > case.Since > > > > > you > > > > > > >> have the > > > > > > >> flow running right now, I would recommend looking at things > like > > > > `top` > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> `iostat` in order > > > > > > >> to understand if you're reaching your limit on CPU, disk, etc. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> As far as RAM is concerned, NiFI typically only needs 4-8 GB > of > > > ram > > > > > for > > > > > > >> the heap. However, > > > > > > >> more RAM means that your operating system can make better use > of > > > > disk > > > > > > >> caching, which > > > > > > >> can certainly speed things up, especially if you're reading > the > > > > > content > > > > > > >> several times for > > > > > > >> each FlowFile. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Does this help at all? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > > >> -Mark > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 6:05 AM, Phil H <gippyp...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks for that. Sorry I should have been more specific - we > > > have a > > > > > > flow > > > > > > >>> running already on non-dedicated hardware. Looking to > identify > > > any > > > > > > >>> limitations in NiFi/JVM that would limit how much parallelism > > it > > > > can > > > > > > take > > > > > > >>> advantage of > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 14:32, Sivaprasanna < > > > > > sivaprasanna...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> Phil, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> The hardware requirements are driven by the nature of the > > > dataflow > > > > > you > > > > > > >> are > > > > > > >>>> developing. If you're looking to play around with NiFi and > > gain > > > > some > > > > > > >>>> hands-on experience, go for a 4 core 8GB RAM i.e. any modern > > > > > > >>>> laptops/computer would do the job. In my case, where I'm > > having > > > > 100s > > > > > > of > > > > > > >>>> dataflows, I have it clustered with 3 nodes. Each having > 16GB > > > RAM > > > > > and > > > > > > >> 4(8) > > > > > > >>>> cores. I went with SSDs of smaller size because my flows are > > > > > involved > > > > > > in > > > > > > >>>> writing to object stores like Google Cloud Storage, Azure > Blob > > > and > > > > > > >> Amazon > > > > > > >>>> S3 and NoSQL DBs. Hope this helps. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> - > > > > > > >>>> Sivaprasanna > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:09 AM Phil H <gippyp...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Hi all, > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I've been asked to spec some hardware for a NiFi > > installation. > > > > Does > > > > > > >>>> anyone > > > > > > >>>>> have any advice? My gut feel is lots of processor cores and > > > RAM, > > > > > with > > > > > > >>>> less > > > > > > >>>>> emphasis on storage (small fast disks). Are there any > > > limitations > > > > > on > > > > > > >> how > > > > > > >>>>> many cores the JRE/NiFi can actually make use of, or any > > other > > > > > > >>>>> considerations like that I should be aware of? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Most likely will be pairs of servers in a cluster, but > again > > > any > > > > > > advice > > > > > > >>>> to > > > > > > >>>>> the contrary would be appreciated. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Cheers, > > > > > > >>>>> Phil > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
