[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3565?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15271185#comment-15271185
]
Jun Rao commented on KAFKA-3565:
--------------------------------
[~becket_qin], thanks for the results. As I was looking at the results with
linger.ms=10000, I was expecting the consumer throughput to be more or less the
same between trunk and 0.9.0 since the batch sizes are about the same in those
tests. Half of the results are actually like that. However, the other half
looks a bit weird. It seems that trunk can be either much better or worse than
0.9.0. Do you have a good explanation on those? How reliable are those numbers?
{code}
max.in.flight.requests.per.connection=1, valueBound=500, linger.ms=100000,
messageSize=1000, compression.type=gzip (30.4 > 16.0)
max.in.flight.requests.per.connection=1, valueBound=500, linger.ms=100000,
messageSize=1000, compression.type=snappy (47.2 < 61.0)
max.in.flight.requests.per.connection=1, valueBound=5000, linger.ms=100000,
messageSize=100, compression.type=gzip (47.7 > 33.3)
max.in.flight.requests.per.connection=1, valueBound=5000, linger.ms=100000,
messageSize=100, compression.type=snappy (28.6 > 21.8)
{code}
> Producer's throughput lower with compressed data after KIP-31/32
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-3565
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3565
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Ismael Juma
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 0.10.0.0
>
>
> Relative offsets were introduced by KIP-31 so that the broker does not have
> to recompress data (this was previously required after offsets were
> assigned). The implicit assumption is that reducing CPU usage required by
> recompression would mean that producer throughput for compressed data would
> increase.
> However, this doesn't seem to be the case:
> {code}
> Commit: eee95228fabe1643baa016a2d49fb0a9fe2c66bd (one before KIP-31/32)
> test_id:
> 2016-04-15--012.kafkatest.tests.benchmark_test.Benchmark.test_producer_throughput.topic=topic-replication-factor-three.security_protocol=PLAINTEXT.acks=1.message_size=100.compression_type=snappy
> status: PASS
> run time: 59.030 seconds
> {"records_per_sec": 519418.343653, "mb_per_sec": 49.54}
> {code}
> Full results: https://gist.github.com/ijuma/0afada4ff51ad6a5ac2125714d748292
> {code}
> Commit: fa594c811e4e329b6e7b897bce910c6772c46c0f (KIP-31/32)
> test_id:
> 2016-04-15--013.kafkatest.tests.benchmark_test.Benchmark.test_producer_throughput.topic=topic-replication-factor-three.security_protocol=PLAINTEXT.acks=1.message_size=100.compression_type=snappy
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 0.243 seconds
> {"records_per_sec": 427308.818848, "mb_per_sec": 40.75}
> {code}
> Full results: https://gist.github.com/ijuma/e49430f0548c4de5691ad47696f5c87d
> The difference for the uncompressed case is smaller (and within what one
> would expect given the additional size overhead caused by the timestamp
> field):
> {code}
> Commit: eee95228fabe1643baa016a2d49fb0a9fe2c66bd (one before KIP-31/32)
> test_id:
> 2016-04-15--010.kafkatest.tests.benchmark_test.Benchmark.test_producer_throughput.topic=topic-replication-factor-three.security_protocol=PLAINTEXT.acks=1.message_size=100
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 4.176 seconds
> {"records_per_sec": 321018.17747, "mb_per_sec": 30.61}
> {code}
> Full results: https://gist.github.com/ijuma/5fec369d686751a2d84debae8f324d4f
> {code}
> Commit: fa594c811e4e329b6e7b897bce910c6772c46c0f (KIP-31/32)
> test_id:
> 2016-04-15--014.kafkatest.tests.benchmark_test.Benchmark.test_producer_throughput.topic=topic-replication-factor-three.security_protocol=PLAINTEXT.acks=1.message_size=100
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 5.079 seconds
> {"records_per_sec": 291777.608696, "mb_per_sec": 27.83}
> {code}
> Full results: https://gist.github.com/ijuma/1d35bd831ff9931448b0294bd9b787ed
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
