Hi Yuheng,

The 10000 record/s is just a param for producerperformance for your
producer target tput. It only takes effect to do the throttling if you
tries to send more than 10000 record/s.  The actual tput of the test
depends on your producer config and your setup.

-Tao

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Yuheng Du <yuheng.du.h...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Also, When I set the target throughput to be 10000 records/s, The actual
> test results show I got an average of 579.86 records per second among all
> my producers. How did that happen? Why this number is not 10000 then?
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Yuheng Du <yuheng.du.h...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Jay, that really helps!
> >
> > Kishore, Where you can monitor whether the network is busy on IO in
> visual
> > vm? Thanks. I am running 90 producer process on 90 physical machines in
> the
> > experiment.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> >> Yuheng,
> >>
> >> From the command you gave it looks like you are configuring the perf
> test
> >> to send data as fast as possible (the -1 for target throughput). This
> >> means
> >> it will always queue up a bunch of unsent data until the buffer is
> >> exhausted and then block. The larger the buffer, the bigger the queue.
> >> This
> >> is where the latency comes from. This is exactly what you would expect
> and
> >> what the buffering is supposed to do.
> >>
> >> If you want to measure latency this test doesn't really make sense, you
> >> need to measure with some fixed throughput. Instead of -1 enter the
> target
> >> throughput you want to measure latency at (e.g. 100000 records/sec).
> >>
> >> -Jay
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Yuheng Du <yuheng.du.h...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thank you Alvaro,
> >> >
> >> > How to use sync producers? I am running the standard
> ProducerPerformance
> >> > test from kafka to measure the latency of each message to send from
> >> > producer to broker only.
> >> > The command is like "bin/kafka-run-class.sh
> >> > org.apache.kafka.clients.tools.ProducerPerformance test7 50000000 100
> -1
> >> > acks=1 bootstrap.servers=esv4-hcl198.grid.linkedin.com:9092
> >> > buffer.memory=67108864 batch.size=8196"
> >> >
> >> > For running producers, where should I put the producer.type=sync
> >> > configuration into? The config/server.properties? Also Does this mean
> we
> >> > are using batch size of 1? Which version of Kafka are you using?
> >> > thanks.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Alvaro Gareppe <agare...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Are you measuring latency as time between producer and consumer ?
> >> > >
> >> > > In that case, the ack shouldn't affect the latency, cause even tough
> >> your
> >> > > producer is not going to wait for the ack, the consumer will only
> get
> >> the
> >> > > message after its commited in the server.
> >> > >
> >> > > About latency my best result occur with sync producers, but the
> >> > throughput
> >> > > is much lower in that case.
> >> > >
> >> > > About not flushing to disk I'm pretty sure that it's not an option
> in
> >> > kafka
> >> > > (correct me if I'm wrong)
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > Alvaro Gareppe
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Yuheng Du <
> yuheng.du.h...@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Also, the latency results show no major difference when using
> ack=0
> >> or
> >> > > > ack=1. Why is that?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Yuheng Du <
> >> yuheng.du.h...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I am running an experiment where 92 producers is publishing data
> >> > into 6
> >> > > > > brokers and 10 consumer are reading online data simultaneously.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > How should I do to reduce the latency? Currently when I run the
> >> > > producer
> >> > > > > performance test the average latency is around 10s.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Should I disable log.flush? How to do that? Thanks.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Ing. Alvaro Gareppe
> >> > > agare...@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to