I read about Kafka as you suggested but it looks to me as a memory-less pub-sub while I want to keep a state in addition of notifying other watchers ...
Regards, Dima Gutzeit. Sent from my iPhone On 3 באוק 2011, at 19:40, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Inline. >> >> Regards, >> Dima Gutzeit. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 3 באוק 2011, at 19:31, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Questions in-line >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dima Gutzeit >>> <[email protected]>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. >>
