storm-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benjamin Black...@b3k.us>
Subject Re: ACK performance hit & Loggly abandoning Storm
Date Sat, 05 Apr 2014 01:55:04 GMT
No part of the post made any sense to me. There is a significant
performance hit when moving to reliable operation in any system and Storm
is clearly doing a good job if a custom built solution can only manage 25%
more throughput.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Neelesh <neeleshs@gmail.com> wrote:

> Its an interesting read. The blog is vague on some details - with ACK on,
> the throughput was 80K/s. With their custom solution its 100K/s. Assuming
> they were both deployed on similar hardware (I do not know , the blog does
> not confirm either way), the difference is not something that warrants a
> custom framework to me. Obviously its working better for Loggly.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Otis Gospodnetic <
> otis.gospodnetic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Apparently Loggly decided to ditch Storm when they got hit by the 2.5x
>> performance degradation factor after turning on ACKing:
>> https://www.loggly.com/what-we-learned-about-scaling-with-apache-storm/
>>
>> How does one minimize this performance hit?
>> Or maybe newer versions of Storm perform better with ACK? (Loggly tested
>> 0.82, they say)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Otis
>> --
>> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics
>> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message