The 1,2million seems to be European notation. 

You meant 1.2 million, right ?

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 1:19 AM, Kamil Dziublinski <kamil.dziublin...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the tip man. I tried playing with this.
> Was changing fetch.message.max.bytes (I still have 0.8 kafka) and also 
> socket.receive.buffer.bytes. With some optimal settings I was able to get to 
> 1,2 million reads per second. So 50% increase. 
> But that unfortunately does not increase when I enable hbase sink again. So 
> it means that backpressure kicks in and hbase writing is here limiting 
> factor. I will try to tweak this a bit more if I find something I will share.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kamil.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org> 
> wrote:
>>> I'm wondering what I can tweak further to increase this. I was reading in 
>>> this blog: 
>>> https://data-artisans.com/extending-the-yahoo-streaming-benchmark/
>>> about 3 millions per sec with only 20 partitions. So i'm sure I should be 
>>> able to squeeze out more out of it.
>> 
>> 
>> Not really sure if it is relevant under the context of your case, but you 
>> could perhaps try tweaking the maximum size of Kafka records fetched on each 
>> poll on the partitions.
>> You can do this by setting a higher value for “max.partition.fetch.bytes” in 
>> the provided config properties when instantiating the consumer; that will 
>> directly configure the internal Kafka clients.
>> Generally, all Kafka settings are applicable through the provided config 
>> properties, so you can perhaps take a look at the Kafka docs to see what 
>> else there is to tune for the clients.
>> 
>>> On March 30, 2017 at 6:11:27 PM, Kamil Dziublinski 
>>> (kamil.dziublin...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm wondering what I can tweak further to increase this. I was reading in 
>>> this blog: 
>>> https://data-artisans.com/extending-the-yahoo-streaming-benchmark/
>>> about 3 millions per sec with only 20 partitions. So i'm sure I should be 
>>> able to squeeze out more out of it.
> 

Reply via email to