hi Graham,

Could you please update with some more details like the size of znode created 
and some of the system parameters like size of the ramdisk, size of RAM etc.. I 
guess this would give a better idea to compare your results with ours and 
discuss on improvements.

________________________________________
From: Graham (JIRA) [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-866) Adding no disk persistence option 
in zookeeper.

    [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-866?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13502200#comment-13502200
 ]

Graham commented on ZOOKEEPER-866:
----------------------------------

We ran some benchmarks using zk-latencies.

We tried to ways to boost performance: Using a RAM disk (tmpfs) and using 
libeatmydata (Makes all file system sync operations no-ops).

libeatmydata benchmarks: http://pastebin.com/cNLjfhPG

Ramdisk using tmpfs benchmarks: http://pastebin.com/mfe92nXn (Note: Different 
box to the last one)

In summary: Synchronous calls are boosted by two orders of magnitude with 
either libeatmydata or ramdisk (In Standalone mode and also clustered mode). 
Asynchronous calls are boosted by a factor of 2 or 3.

For tests, simulations etc. a Zookeeper without snapshots or logs makes a lot 
of sense, but for production use, the ramdisk or eatmydata options both looks 
pretty good.

Another thing we found works well is to have a battery backed raid array; 
writes to go to raid cache and will sync to disk eventually.



> Adding no disk persistence option in zookeeper.
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-866
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-866
>             Project: ZooKeeper
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Mahadev konar
>            Assignee: Mahadev konar
>             Fix For: 3.5.0
>
>         Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-nodisk.patch
>
>
> Its been seen that some folks would like to use zookeeper for very fine 
> grained locking. Also, in there use case they are fine with loosing all old 
> zookeeper state if they reboot zookeeper or zookeeper goes down. The use case 
> is more of a runtime locking wherein forgetting the state of locks is 
> acceptable in case of a zookeeper reboot. Not logging to disk allows high 
> throughput on and low latency on the writes to zookeeper. This would be a 
> configuration option to set (ofcourse the default would be logging to disk).

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Reply via email to