A call with Amazon confirmed instability for d2 and c4 instances triggered by lots of network activity. They fixed the problem and have since rolled it out. We've been running Kafka with d2's for a little while now and so far so good.
Wes On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Wes Chow <w...@chartbeat.com> wrote: > > We have run d2 instances with Kafka. They're currently unstable -- Amazon > confirmed a host issue with d2 instances that gets tickled by a Kafka > workload yesterday. Otherwise, it seems the d2 instance type is ideal as it > gets an enormous amount of disk throughput and you'll likely be network > bottlenecked. > > Wes > > > Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> > June 2, 2015 at 1:07 PM > EBS (network attached storage) has got a lot better over the last a few > years. we don't quite trust it for kafka workload. > > At Netflix, we were going with the new d2 instance type (HDD). our > perf/load testing shows it satisfy our workload. SSD is better in latency > curve but pretty comparable in terms of throughput. we can use the extra > space from HDD for longer retention period. > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Henry Cai <h...@pinterest.com.invalid> > <h...@pinterest.com.invalid> > > Henry Cai <h...@pinterest.com.INVALID> > June 2, 2015 at 12:37 PM > We have been hosting kafka brokers in Amazon EC2 and we are using EBS > disk. But periodically we were hit by long I/O wait time on EBS in some > Availability Zones. > > We are thinking to change the instance types to a local HDD or local SSD. > HDD is cheaper and bigger and seems quite fit for the Kafka use case which > is mostly sequential read/write, but some early experiments show the HDD > cannot catch up with the message producing speed since there are many > topic/partitions on the broker which actually makes the disk I/O more > randomly accessed. > > How are people's experience of choosing disk types on Amazon? > >
