Hi,

I check the time when StartBundle is called and do the same thing for
FinishBundle then take the difference between Start and Finish Bundle times
and report bundle latency. I put this metric on
a step(KafkaMessageExtractor) which is right after the KafkaIO step. I dont
know if this is related, My pipeline has a Windowing function and
GroupIntoBatches. Windowing duration is 10 seconds and batch size is 400.
My Current traffic is 8kps. I changed the window duration 5 seconds and 20
seconds. But it does not affect much.

KafkaIO -> KafkaMessageExtractor -> Windowing Function -> Sink

.apply(Window.<KV<String, byte[]>>into(
    FixedWindows.of(Duration.standardSeconds(windowDurationSeconds)))
    .triggering(Repeatedly.forever(AfterFirst.of(
        AfterPane.elementCountAtLeast((int) batchSize),
        AfterProcessingTime.pastFirstElementInPane()
            .plusDelayOf(Duration.standardSeconds(windowDurationSeconds))))
    )
    .withAllowedLateness(Duration.ZERO)
    .discardingFiredPanes())
.apply(GroupIntoBatches.ofSize(batchSize))


Thanks


On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 8:37 AM Alexey Romanenko <aromanenko....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Talat,
>
> Could you elaborate what do you mean by “*opening and closing bundle*”?
>
> Sometimes, starting a KafkaReader can take time since it will seek for a
> start offset for each assigned partition but it happens only once at
> pipeline start-up and mostly depends on network conditions.
>
> On 9 Jun 2020, at 23:05, Talat Uyarer <tuya...@paloaltonetworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I added some metrics on a step right after KafkaIO. When I compare the
> read time difference between producer and KafkaIO it is 800ms for P99.
> However somehow that step's opening and closing bundle difference is 18
> seconds for p99. The step itself does not do any specific thing. Do you
> have any idea why bundle latency is very high ? Where should I check or
> tune on KafkaIO ?
>
> Additional information I read from one topic. That topic has 15
> partitions. Producer write in a round robin fashion.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>

Reply via email to