it remains up (redundant installations,
> redundant disks, redundant network connections etc) is a better approach
> IMHO.
>
> Philip
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Jun Rao wrote:
>
> > Another way to handle this is to provision enough client and broke
without acks. Does this sound
reasonable?
Thanks,
Piotr
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Piotr Kozikowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At LiveRamp we are considering replacing Scribe with Kafka, and as a first
> step we run some tests to evaluate producer performance. You can find our
> prel
are used. In our use case this means that we need to either
> ensure
> > we have spare capacity for spikes, or use something on top of Kafka to
> > absorb spikes."
> >
> > ?
> > Thanks,
> > Otis
> >
> > Performance Monitoring for Solr /
> ?
> Thanks,
> Otis
>
> Performance Monitoring for Solr / ElasticSearch / HBase -
> http://sematext.com/spm
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > From: Piotr Kozikowski
> >To: users@kafka.apache.org
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 1:2
. Not sure that I understand the difference btw the first 2 graphs in the
> latency section. What's different btw the 2 tests?
>
> 4. Post 0.8, we plan to improve the producer side throughput by
> implementing non-blocking socket on the client side.
>
> Jun
>
>
> On Mon
Hi,
At LiveRamp we are considering replacing Scribe with Kafka, and as a first
step we run some tests to evaluate producer performance. You can find our
preliminary results here:
https://blog.liveramp.com/2013/04/08/kafka-0-8-producer-performance-2/. We
hope this will be useful for some folks, and
