Hi Jerry, Thanks for updating the blog. Storm with acking should be compared with similar configuration on Flink which may be with checkpointing enabled or some other configuration which gives at-least-once guarantee. But the below paragraph gives an impression that storm with acking is equivalent of Flink without checkpointing which is not right.
"Without acking, Storm even beat Flink at very high throughput, and we expect that with further optimizations like combining bolts, more intelligent routing of tuples, and improved acking, Storm with acking enabled would compete with Flink at very high throughput too." Thanks, Satish. On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Boyang(Jerry) Peng < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Satish, > You are correct, there was a typo. The sentence should be: > Flink uses a mechanism called checkpointing to guarantee processing. > Unless checkpointing is used in the Flink job, Flink offers at most once > processing similar to Storm with acking turned OFF. For the Flink > benchmark we did not use checkpointing." > > We have already fixed the typo on the blog. Thanks! > Best, > Boyang Jerry Peng > > > On Thursday, December 17, 2015 4:12 AM, Satish Duggana < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Bobby etal, > Thanks for publishing blog post on “Benchmarking streaming computation > engines< > http://yahooeng.tumblr.com/post/135321837876/benchmarking-streaming-computation-engines-at>”. > It gives good insights on how different streaming engines perform with the > usecase mentioned. > > “Flink uses a mechanism called checkpointing to guarantee processing. > Unless checkpointing is used in the Flink job, Flink offers at most once > processing similar to Storm with acking turned on. For the Flink benchmark > we did not use checkpointing." > > Above snippet in your blog was confusing regarding at-most-once guarantee. > My understanding is that Storm gives at-most-once without acking. But > at-least-once guarantee requires acking on. So, Storm’s acking should be > compared with Flink’s at-least-once guarantee which may be by enabling > checkpointing or any other required configuration. Am I missing anything > here? > > Thanks, > Satish. > > > >
