Post your code.  Even Dev mode is far faster for us.
On Jan 10, 2014 8:44 AM, "Klausen Schaefersinho" <klaus.schaef...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > I've benched storm at 1.8 million tuples per second on a big (24 core)
> box using local or shuffle grouping between a spout and bolt.
> Production or development mode?
>
> > you're only seeing 10 events per second make sure you don't have any
> sleeps
> Yeah I checked  for sleeps etc. and stripped down my code. Now my bolts do
> nothing and the spout just creates random data...
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Nathan Leung <ncle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've benched storm at 1.8 million tuples per second on a big (24 core)
>> box using local or shuffle grouping between a spout and bolt. If you're
>> only seeing 10 events per second make sure you don't have any sleeps
>> (whether in your code or elsewhere e.g. a library or triggered due to lack
>> of data in the storm spout). Also note that the default sleep period in the
>> spout when there is no data (in storm 0.9) is I believe 1ms so even if
>> you're hitting this condition you should see much more than 10 events per
>> second.
>>  On Jan 10, 2014 10:19 AM, "Jon Logan" <jmlo...@buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Why would you benchmark local mode? It's intended for debugging and
>>> development purposes, not actual production use...............
>>>
>>>
>>> per the website, Storm itself is  benchmarked at > 1 million tuples per
>>> second per node.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Klausen Schaefersinho <
>>> klaus.schaef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> how is the performance of a real cluster compared to a local
>>>> development cluster? I was trying to benchmark Storm now and found  that it
>>>> only manages to consume 10 events per second in a simple topology which
>>>> only consists out of i spout and one bolt where the spout creates random
>>>> objects and the bolt acknowledge the tuple.
>>>>
>>>> 10 events terrible slow, and I am not sure if this is related to the
>>>> develop mode.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Klaus
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Reply via email to