[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3565?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15267803#comment-15267803
]
Jun Rao commented on KAFKA-3565:
--------------------------------
Jiangjie, thanks for the results. It seems that the overall producer throughput
can be degraded in trunk in some of the cases. The degradation seems to be
related to batching and/or compression ratio, which is a bit hard to fully
understand.
A simpler test is probably to compare the producer throughput between trunk and
0.9.0 when the batching size is the same. To do that, I was thinking that we
can set a large batch.size and linger.ms and explicitly call flush() in
ProducerPerformance after a certain number of records has been sent. If we can
show that the throughput in trunk in this setting is better than 0.9.0 when
compression is enabled, we can be confident that the changes in KIP-31/KIP-32
didn't directly cause a performance degradation.
> Producer's throughput lower with compressed data after KIP-31/32
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-3565
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3565
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Ismael Juma
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 0.10.0.0
>
>
> Relative offsets were introduced by KIP-31 so that the broker does not have
> to recompress data (this was previously required after offsets were
> assigned). The implicit assumption is that reducing CPU usage required by
> recompression would mean that producer throughput for compressed data would
> increase.
> However, this doesn't seem to be the case:
> {code}
> Commit: eee95228fabe1643baa016a2d49fb0a9fe2c66bd (one before KIP-31/32)
> test_id:
> 2016-04-15--012.kafkatest.tests.benchmark_test.Benchmark.test_producer_throughput.topic=topic-replication-factor-three.security_protocol=PLAINTEXT.acks=1.message_size=100.compression_type=snappy
> status: PASS
> run time: 59.030 seconds
> {"records_per_sec": 519418.343653, "mb_per_sec": 49.54}
> {code}
> Full results: https://gist.github.com/ijuma/0afada4ff51ad6a5ac2125714d748292
> {code}
> Commit: fa594c811e4e329b6e7b897bce910c6772c46c0f (KIP-31/32)
> test_id:
> 2016-04-15--013.kafkatest.tests.benchmark_test.Benchmark.test_producer_throughput.topic=topic-replication-factor-three.security_protocol=PLAINTEXT.acks=1.message_size=100.compression_type=snappy
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 0.243 seconds
> {"records_per_sec": 427308.818848, "mb_per_sec": 40.75}
> {code}
> Full results: https://gist.github.com/ijuma/e49430f0548c4de5691ad47696f5c87d
> The difference for the uncompressed case is smaller (and within what one
> would expect given the additional size overhead caused by the timestamp
> field):
> {code}
> Commit: eee95228fabe1643baa016a2d49fb0a9fe2c66bd (one before KIP-31/32)
> test_id:
> 2016-04-15--010.kafkatest.tests.benchmark_test.Benchmark.test_producer_throughput.topic=topic-replication-factor-three.security_protocol=PLAINTEXT.acks=1.message_size=100
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 4.176 seconds
> {"records_per_sec": 321018.17747, "mb_per_sec": 30.61}
> {code}
> Full results: https://gist.github.com/ijuma/5fec369d686751a2d84debae8f324d4f
> {code}
> Commit: fa594c811e4e329b6e7b897bce910c6772c46c0f (KIP-31/32)
> test_id:
> 2016-04-15--014.kafkatest.tests.benchmark_test.Benchmark.test_producer_throughput.topic=topic-replication-factor-three.security_protocol=PLAINTEXT.acks=1.message_size=100
> status: PASS
> run time: 1 minute 5.079 seconds
> {"records_per_sec": 291777.608696, "mb_per_sec": 27.83}
> {code}
> Full results: https://gist.github.com/ijuma/1d35bd831ff9931448b0294bd9b787ed
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
