[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3704?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ismael Juma updated KAFKA-3704:
-------------------------------
Issue Type: Improvement (was: Bug)
> Improve mechanism for compression stream block size selection in KafkaProducer
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-3704
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3704
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Guozhang Wang
> Assignee: Ismael Juma
> Fix For: 0.10.1.0
>
>
> As discovered in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3565, the
> current default block size (1K) used in Snappy and GZIP may cause a
> sub-optimal compression ratio for Snappy, and hence reduce throughput.
> Because we no longer recompress data in the broker, it also impacts what gets
> stored on disk.
> A solution might be to use the default block size, which is 64K in LZ4, 32K
> in Snappy and 0.5K in GZIP. The downside is that this solution will require
> more memory allocated outside of the buffer pool and hence users may need to
> bump up their JVM heap size, especially for MirrorMakers. Using Snappy as an
> example, it's an additional 2x32k per batch (as Snappy uses two buffers) and
> one would expect at least one batch per partition. However, the number of
> batches per partition can be much higher if the broker is slow to acknowledge
> producer requests (depending on `buffer.memory`, `batch.size`, message size,
> etc.).
> Given the above, there are a few things that could be done (potentially more
> than one):
> 1) A configuration for the producer compression stream buffer size.
> 2) Allocate buffers from the buffer pool and pass them to the compression
> library. This is possible with Snappy and we could adapt our LZ4 code. It's
> not possible with GZIP, but it uses a very small buffer by default.
> 3) Close the existing `RecordBatch.records` when we create a new
> `RecordBatch` for the `TopicPartition` instead of doing it during
> `RecordAccumulator.drain`. This would mean that we would only retain
> resources for one `RecordBatch` per partition, which would improve the worst
> case scenario significantly.
> Note that we decided that this change was too risky for 0.10.0.0 and reverted
> the original attempt.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
