Correct. But if your state is changing that fast, pub-sub might well be a useful way to direct the firehose in the right direction.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Dima Gutzeit <dima.gutz...@mailvision.com>wrote: > 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 <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> 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 > > <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. > >> >