No part of the post made any sense to me. There is a significant performance hit when moving to reliable operation in any system and Storm is clearly doing a good job if a custom built solution can only manage 25% more throughput.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Neelesh <neele...@gmail.com> wrote: > Its an interesting read. The blog is vague on some details - with ACK on, > the throughput was 80K/s. With their custom solution its 100K/s. Assuming > they were both deployed on similar hardware (I do not know , the blog does > not confirm either way), the difference is not something that warrants a > custom framework to me. Obviously its working better for Loggly. > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Otis Gospodnetic < > otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Apparently Loggly decided to ditch Storm when they got hit by the 2.5x >> performance degradation factor after turning on ACKing: >> https://www.loggly.com/what-we-learned-about-scaling-with-apache-storm/ >> >> How does one minimize this performance hit? >> Or maybe newer versions of Storm perform better with ACK? (Loggly tested >> 0.82, they say) >> >> Thanks, >> Otis >> -- >> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >> >> >
