or you can use this Receiver as well :
http://spark-packages.org/package/dibbhatt/kafka-spark-consumer

Where you can specify how many Receivers you need for your topic and it
will divides the partitions among the Receiver and return the joined stream
for you .

Say you specified 20 receivers , in that case each Receiver can handle 4
partitions and you get consumer parallelism of 20 receivers .

Dibyendu

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:28 PM, 李森栋 <[email protected]> wrote:

> thank you very much
>
>
> 来自 魅族 MX4 Pro
>
> -------- 原始邮件 --------
> 发件人:Cody Koeninger <[email protected]>
> 时间:周三 5月13日 23:52
> 收件人:hotdog <[email protected]>
> 抄送:[email protected]
> 主题:Re: force the kafka consumer process to different machines
>
> >I assume you're using the receiver based approach?  Have you tried the
> >createDirectStream api?
> >
> >https://spark.apache.org/docs/1.3.0/streaming-kafka-integration.html
> >
> >If you're sticking with the receiver based approach I think your only
> >option would be to create more consumer streams and union them.  That
> >doesn't give you control over where they're run, but should increase the
> >consumer parallelism.
> >
> >On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:33 AM, hotdog <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I 'm using streaming integrated with streaming-kafka.
> >>
> >> My kafka topic has 80 partitions, while my machines have 40 cores. I
> found
> >> that when the job is running, the kafka consumer processes are only
> deploy
> >> to 2 machines, the bandwidth of the 2 machines will be very very high.
> >>
> >> I wonder is there any way to control the kafka consumer's dispatch?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://apache-spark-user-list.1001560.n3.nabble.com/force-the-kafka-consumer-process-to-different-machines-tp22872.html
> >> Sent from the Apache Spark User List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to