Hi Peter,
Thanks for the reply! I noticed that, after deployment, changelog
topic has high bytes in/sec and messages/sec, but low bytes out/sec.
Once the app is unstable, or traffic is bumpy, it switched: changelog
topic has low bytes in/sec and messages/sec but high bytes out/sec. Is
it normally? Why it will switch during unstable time?

Thanks!

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:03 AM Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hu,
>
> On 10/2/19 8:54 PM, Xiyuan Hu wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm doing smoke testing with my Kafka Streams app(V2.1.0). I noticed
> > that below behaviors:
> > 1) Out throughput of changelog topic could go up to 70mb/s while the
> > in-traffic is around 10mb/s.
> > 2) When traffic is bumpy, either due to producer/consumer throttle or
> > some other reasons I'm still debugging, changelog topic out throughput
> > could go up to 160mb/s while in-throughput is less than 1mb/s. And
> > from the monitor tool, no messages are actually put into this topic.
> >
> > Could anyone help me to understand how changelog topic works? Given it
> > still has consumer lag and producer timeout issues(records
> > expired(5min) since batch created), is it just the cluster
> > bandwidth/capacity issue?
> >
> > Thanks, appreciate all the help!!
>
> In case you're using KeyValueStore (the simplest of stores), each update
> of a (K, V) entry into the store produced by the processor of your
> stream will result in one message written to the log topic of that
> store. Multiple quick consecutive updates to the same entry (with same
> key) are possibly collapsed into just one message holding the last
> version of the entry. So it is possible that your input stream is having
> keys that are not repeating very frequently in short time, therefore the
> rate of messages/s is roughly the same in your input and log topics. The
> difference in bytes/s therefore must be the result of input topic
> message size vs. log topic message size. The log topic message is
> basically the whole (K, V) entry in the KVStore.
>
> Regards, Peter
>

Reply via email to