Looks like Jun's email didn't format the output properly. I've published some preliminary producer throughput performance numbers on our performance wiki - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Performance+testing#Performancetesting-Producerthroughput
These tests measure producer throughput in the worst case scenario (producer.num.acks=-1) i.e. max durability setting. The baseline with 0.7 would be to compare producer throughput with num.acks=0. We are working on those tests now. Thanks, Neha On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > We also did some perf test on 0.8 using the following command. All configs > on the broker are the defaults. > bin/kafka-run-class.sh kafka.perf.ProducerPerformance --broker-list > localhost:9092 --initial-message-id 0 --messages 2000000 --topics topic_001 > --request-num-acks -1 --batch-size 100 --threads 1 --message-size 1024 > --compression-codec 0 > > The following is our preliminary result. Could you try this on your > environment? For replication factor larger than 1, we will try ack=1 and > report the numbers later. It should provide better throughput. Thanks, > > *No. of Brokers = 1 / Replication Factor = 1 (Partition = 1)**Producer > threads**comp**msg size**Acks**batch**Thru Put > (MB/s)*101024-115.49201024-11 > 9.38501024-1116.611001024-1119.54101024-15025.72201024-15039.25501024-150 > > 54.171001024-15056.71101024-110027.97201024-110045.05501024-110058.011001024 > -110059.82*No. of Brokers = 2 / Replication Factor = 2 (Partitions = > 1)**Producer > threads**comp**msg size**Acks**batch**Thru Put > (MB/s)*101024-110.58201024-11 > 1.17501024-111.601001024-113.15101024-1507.48201024-15013.89501024-15018.11 > 1001024-15020.91101024-11008.72201024-110016.84501024-110020.661001024-1100 > 23.82*No. of Brokers = 3 / Replication Factor = 3 (Partitions = > 1)**Producer > threads**comp**msg size**Acks**batch**Thru Put > (MB/s)*101024-110.53201024-11 > 0.94501024-111.721001024-112.78101024-1507.08201024-15013.40501024-15018.11 > 1001024-15021.01101024-11008.09201024-110014.88501024-110019.931001024-1100 > 23.22 > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Jun Guo -X (jungu - CIIC at Cisco) < > ju...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > Hi,**** > > > > I do producer(Kafka 0.8) throughput test many times. But the > > average value is 3MB/S. Below is my test environment:**** > > > > CPU core :16 **** > > > > Vendor_id ：GenuineIntel**** > > > > Cpu family ：6**** > > > > Cpu MHz :2899.999**** > > > > Cache size :20480 KB**** > > > > Cpu level :13**** > > > > MEM :16330832KB=15.57GB**** > > > > Disk : RAID5**** > > > > ** ** > > > > I don’t know the detail information about the disk, such as > > rotation. But I do some test about the I/O performance of the disk. The > > write rate is 500MB~600MB/S, the read rate is 180MB/S. The detail is as > > below. **** > > > > [image: cid:image002.png@01CDF4AE.52046900]**** > > > > ** ** > > > > And I adjust the broker configuration file as the official document says > > as below. And I adjust the JVM to 5120MB. **** > > > > I run producer performance test with the script > > kafka-producer-perf-test.sh, with the test command is **** > > > > *bin/kafka-producer-perf-test.sh --broker-list 10.75.167.46:49092--topics > topic_perf_46_1,topic_perf_46_2,topic_perf_46_3,topic_perf_46_4, > > topic_perf_46_5,topic_perf_46_6, > > topic_perf_46_7,topic_perf_46_8,topic_perf_46_9,topic_perf_46_10 > > --initial-message-id 0 --threads 200 --messages 1000000 --message-size > 200 > > --compression-codec 1* > > > > ** ** > > > > But the test result is also not as good as the official document > > says(50MB/S, and that value in your paper is 100MB/S). The test result is > > as below:**** > > > > 2013-01-17 04:15:24:768, 2013-01-17 04:25:01:637, 0, 200, 200, 1907.35, * > > 3.3064,* 10000000, 17334.9582**** > > > > ** ** > > > > On the other hand, I do consumer throughput test, the result is about > > 60MB/S while that value in official document is 100MB/S.**** > > > > I really don’t know why?**** > > > > You know high throughput is one of the most important features of Kafka. > > So I am really concerned with it.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > Thanks and best regards!**** > > > > ** ** > > > > *From:* Jay Kreps [mailto:jkr...@linkedin.com] > > *Sent:* 2013年1月16日 2:22 > > *To:* Jun Guo -X (jungu - CIIC at Cisco) > > *Subject:* RE: About acknowledge from broker to producer in your > paper.*** > > * > > > > ** ** > > > > Not sure which version you are using... **** > > > > ** ** > > > > In 0.7 this would happen only if there was a socket level error (i.e. > > can't connect to the host). This covers a lot of cases since in the event > > of I/O errors (disk full, etc) we just have that node shut itself down to > > let others take over.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > In 0.8 we send all errors back to the client.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > So the difference is that, for example, in the event of a disk error, in > > 0.7 the client would send a message, the broker would get an error and > > shoot itself in the head and disconnect its clients, and the client would > > get the error the next time it tried to send a message. So in 0.7 the > error > > might not get passed back to the client until the second message send. In > > 0.8 this would happen with the first send, which is an improvement.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > -Jay**** > > ------------------------------ > > > > *From:* Jun Guo -X (jungu - CIIC at Cisco) [ju...@cisco.com] > > *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2013 9:45 PM > > *To:* Jay Kreps > > *Subject:* About acknowledge from broker to producer in your paper.**** > > > > Hi,**** > > > > I have read your paper *Kafka: a Distributed Messaging System for > > Log Processing* .**** > > > > In experimental results part. There are some words as below:**** > > > > **** > > > > *There are a few reasons why Kafka performed much better. First, > > the Kafka producer currently doesn**’t wait for acknowledgements from the > > broker and sends messages as faster as the broker can handle. This > > significantly increased the throughput of the publisher. With a batch > size > > of 50, a single Kafka producer almost saturated the 1Gb link between the > > producer and the broker. This is a valid optimization for the log > > aggregation case, as data must be sent asynchronously to avoid > introducing > > any latency into the live serving of traffic. We note that without > > acknowledging the producer, there is no guarantee that every published > > message is actually received by the broker. For many types of log data, > it > > is desirable to trade durability for throughput, as long as the number of > > dropped messages is relatively small. However, we do plan to***** > > > > *address the durability issue for more critical data in the future.***** > > > > **** > > > > But I have done a series of test. I found that ,if I shut down all > > the brokers, when I send a message from producer to broker, the producer > > will report kafka.common.FailedToSendMessageException . It says, Failed > to > > send messages after 3 tries.**** > > > > **** > > > > If there is no acknowledge from broker, how the producer find the > > sending is failed? And how it try 3 times?**** > > > > **** > > > > Maybe, the acknowledge in your paper refers to another thing, if > so > > ,please tell what is the meaning of acknowledge?**** > > > > **** > > > > Many thanks and best regards!**** > > > > **** > > > > Guo Jun**** > > >
