[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1190?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14999409#comment-14999409
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-1190:
---------------------------------------

Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/870#issuecomment-155579912
  
    OK Don't sell your idea short just yet.  I did some tuning of the 
ExecutorService and the numbers are on par with prior to batching.
    
    user:      4,552
    sys:      5,015
    
    These are just the CPU ms over a 30 second interval, so smaller is better 
here.  I will check in the changes so you can have a look.  There is still some 
code cleanup to do and more testing before I consider it ready for a full pull 
request but it is looking very promising.


> System load spikes in recent snapshot
> -------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: STORM-1190
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1190
>             Project: Apache Storm
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: storm-core
>    Affects Versions: 0.11.0
>         Environment: 10x (CoreOS stable (766.4.0) / k8s 1.0.1 / docker 
> running on Azure VMs)
>            Reporter: Michael Schonfeld
>            Priority: Critical
>         Attachments: Screenshot 2015-11-08 22.17.57.png, Screenshot 
> 2015-11-08 22.18.06.png
>
>
> We've been running Storm's snapshots on our production cluster for a little 
> while now (that back pressure support really helped us), and we've noticed a 
> sudden spike in system load when going from 
> commit@ba1250993d10ffc523c9f5464371fbeb406d216f to the current latest 
> commit@c12e28c829fcfabc0a3a775fb9714968b7e3e349. Both versions were running 
> the exact same topologies, and there was no significant change in workload. 
> Not exactly sure how to even begin to debug this, so we ended up just rolling 
> back. Thoughts?
> Stats screenshots attached



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to