Are you saying you have only one request outstanding at a time and the previous request has to be acknowledged before the next request can be sent?
If that is the case, given that there is a durable write to the journal required before an add is acknowledged by the bookie, there isn't much more room to improve beyond the 250 requests per second you are currently getting On Jun 10, 2015 7:00 AM, "Maciej Smoleński" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank You for Your comment. > > Unfortunately, these option will not help in my case. > In my case BookKeeper client will receive next request when previous > request is confirmed. > It is expected also that there will be only single stream of such requests. > > I would like to understand how to achieve performance equal to the network > bandwidth. > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> BK currently isn't wired to stream bytes to a ledger, so writing >> synchronously large entries as you're doing is likely not to get the best >> its performance. A couple of things you could try to get higher performance >> are to write asynchronously and to have multiple clients writing. >> >> -Flavio >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:08 PM, Maciej Smoleński < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> I'm testing BK performance when appending 100K entries synchronously from >> 1 thread (using one ledger). >> The performance I get is 250 entries/s. >> >> What performance should I expect ? >> >> My setup: >> >> Ledger: >> Ensemble size: 3 >> Quorum size: 2 >> >> 1 client machine and 3 server machines. >> >> Network: >> Each machine with bonding: 4 x 1000Mbps on each machine >> manually tested between client and server: 400MB/s >> >> Disk: >> I tested two configurations: >> dedicated disks with ext3 (different for zookeeper, journal, data, index, >> log) >> dedicated ramfs partitions (different for zookeeper, journal, data, >> index, log) >> >> In both configurations the performance is the same: 250 entries / s (25MB >> / s). >> I confirmed this with measured network bandwidth: >> - on client 50 MB/s >> - on server 17 MB/s >> >> I run java with profiler enabled on BK client and BK server but didn't >> find anything unexpected (but I don't know bookkeeper internals). >> >> I tested it with two BookKeeper versions: >> - 4.3.0 >> - 4.2.2 >> The result were the same with both BookKeeper versions. >> >> What should be changed/checked to get better performance ? >> >> Kind regards, >> Maciej >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
