I think that these levels are achievable with a correctly tuned ZK cluster, but you won't have as much head-room as I would like. I really think that using other systems built on top of ZK might be more useful.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Dima Gutzeit <dima.gutz...@mailvision.com>wrote: > Inline. > > Regards, > Dima Gutzeit. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 3 באוק 2011, at 19:31, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Questions in-line > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dima Gutzeit > > <dima.gutz...@mailvision.com>wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have some performance related question. > >> > >> I am running a cluster of 5 zookeeper machines, each one has dual quad > >> core Xeon 2.5 Ghz, 8 gb RAM. > >> > >> I want achieve the following numbers: > >> > >> 10 clients producing in total (at peaks): > >> > > > > Each producing this? > > Total. > > > > > >> 3K add nodes, 3K delete nodes and 10K watches. Per second. > >> > > > > What do you mean by 10K watches? 10,000 watch notifications? > > Yes. > > > > Does those numbers make any sense ? > >> > > > > This is a bit high. It sounds like you are trying to use ZK as a message > > bus rather than a coordination service. You can do this, but the > throughput > > you can achieve is limited. If you want higher throughput, it is better > to > > have ZK coordinate a higher performance messaging system such as Kafka. >
