kafka-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Crayford <tcrayf...@heroku.com>
Subject Re: Zookeeper on same server as Kafka
Date Sun, 04 Jun 2017 10:34:23 GMT

I would not recommend running this kind of set up in production. Busy Kafka
brokers use up a lot of disk and network bandwidth, which zookeeper does
not deal well with. This means that a burst of traffic to 1 node carries
the risk of disrupting the ZK ensemble.

Secondly, this will cause problems down the line, because you will want to
scale Kafka independently from ZK. ZK gets slower as you add nodes, but
Kafka can scale out for quite a while. For production clusters, I'd
recommend to always have 5 ZK nodes, but for Kafka, you can scale well past
that, or keep it small while you are starting out.


Tom Crayford
Heroku Kafka

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Michal Borowiecki <
michal.borowiecki@openbet.com> wrote:

> I'm not an expert but I prefer keeping zookeepers on the same hosts as
> kafka brokers and mimic each-others topology. The reason is to minimize the
> chance of e.g. kafka brokers being able to talk to one another but
> zookeepers not, or vice-versa. So, I'd say I *do* want my kafka broker
> and the co-located zookeeper to go down together - for simplicity - prefer
> that to some asymmetric failures to debug. This comes from past experience,
> albeit using other technologies, when relying on 2 different clustering
> mechanism made failures in one but not the other very difficult to debug.
> Also, I think I read this advice somewhere a long time ago (don't recall
> where) and it made sense to me (given the prior experience) and we've never
> tried a different arrangement.
> As to the overheads, I believe it's mostly disk IO and can hopefully be
> addressed by separate disks for each but it's never been a bottleneck for
> us, so can't really say.
> Thanks,
> MichaƂ
> On 02/06/17 21:47, Mohammed Manna wrote:
> Usually, the overhead comes when you have kafka and zookeeper doing the
> housekeeping (i.e. Disk IO) on the same server. ZK even suggests that you
> should keep their logs on totally different physical machine for better
> performance. Furthermore, if a mechanical failure occurs, you might not
> want both zookeeper and broker going down together.
> Can anyone else chime in for some better points?
> On 2 Jun 2017 7:57 pm, "Meghana Narasimhan" <mnarasimhan@bandwidth.com> <mnarasimhan@bandwidth.com>
> wrote:
> Hi,
> What are the pros and cons of setting up Zookeeper on the same server as
> the Kafka broker ? Earlier offsets were being written to zookeeper which
> was a major overhead but with offsets being written to Kafka now, what
> other requirements should be taken into consideration for setting up
> Zookeeper on the same server as Kafka vs having a separate zookeeper
> cluster ?
> Thanks,
> Meghana
> --
> <http://www.openbet.com/> Michal Borowiecki
> Senior Software Engineer L4
> T: +44 208 742 1600 <+44%2020%208742%201600>
> +44 203 249 8448 <+44%2020%203249%208448>
> E: michal.borowiecki@openbet.com
> W: www.openbet.com
> OpenBet Ltd
> Chiswick Park Building 9
> 566 Chiswick High Rd
> London
> W4 5XT
> UK
> <https://www.openbet.com/email_promo>
> This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you
> have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
> postmaster@openbet.com and delete it from your system as well as any
> copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by
> OpenBet for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment
> please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. OpenBet Ltd. Registered
> Office: Chiswick Park Building 9, 566 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 5XT,
> United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no.
> 3134634. VAT no. GB927523612

  • Unnamed multipart/related (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message