Thanks for the tip with the number of masters! java version "1.6.0_45" on Debian 3.2.54-2
On 25 March 2014 07:55, Mark Walkom <[email protected]> wrote: > Java version? Also what OS? > > Just as a general note, it's always good to have an uneven number of > masters to ensure you get a majority quorum. > > Regards, > Mark Walkom > > Infrastructure Engineer > Campaign Monitor > email: [email protected] > web: www.campaignmonitor.com > > > On 25 March 2014 17:35, Robin Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Each node had 8 cores (2.4GHz Xeon), 32GB RAM, SSD disks (I never saw >> IOWait, but was also focusing on ingestion rate). >> I always had 2 master nodes, and in addition tried the configurations 20, >> 10 and 5 data nodes. >> Running Elasticsearch 1.0.1 (but with Logstash 1.3.3) >> >> -Robin- >> >> >> On 25 March 2014 06:17, Mark Walkom <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Can you elaborate what your cluster setup is like? >>> >>> Node specs (disk, RAM, CPU), how many master/data nodes and what version >>> of ES and java you're running? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mark Walkom >>> >>> Infrastructure Engineer >>> Campaign Monitor >>> email: [email protected] >>> web: www.campaignmonitor.com >>> >>> >>> On 25 March 2014 16:11, Robin Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I did some intensive tests last week on a 20-node cluster and had the >>>> following insights - I'd be interested if anyone has similar/dissimilar >>>> experience. >>>> The had 20 nodes had 8 cores each, and 32GB memory each. I set up >>>> Elasticsearch to have 15GB of that memory. >>>> The sample events I was using were Apache logs (common format) without >>>> any additional fields (no geoip, useragent etc. plugins). >>>> When running as a 20-node cluster, I got a maximum igestion rate of >>>> 2500k events/minute (41k/second), *but* the bottleneck was the >>>> logstash CPU load... so I reduced to a 10 node cluster... >>>> With the 10 nodes I initially had 1600k/minute (27k) and acheived >>>> 1800k/minute (30k/second) by increasing index_refresh_interval to 30s and >>>> index_buffer_size to 20% >>>> Further reducing to 5 nodes, I had 1100k/minute (18k/second). >>>> This brings me to an interesting comparison: at 10 nodes, I have 3k >>>> events/second/node, and with 5 nodes I have 3.66k events/second/node. i.e. >>>> the overhead for doubling the number of nodes from 5 to 10 is about 20%. >>>> Is this to be expected? Just how scalable is Elasticsearch - at what >>>> point is the diminishing return on adding nodes not cost effective? >>>> Is the further logical reduction to 375 events/core/second still >>>> meaningful? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -Robin- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "elasticsearch" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/3353dab5-6241-4b41-8845-6c5f8553d488%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/3353dab5-6241-4b41-8845-6c5f8553d488%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/muIKhFkrxFc/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAEM624b8a8ZZbOc81g18XZWNz3qYV3gby%3DCtGrPZ8f%2BwiXXYEg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAEM624b8a8ZZbOc81g18XZWNz3qYV3gby%3DCtGrPZ8f%2BwiXXYEg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best winds, >> -Robin- >> ~:) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "elasticsearch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CACX78vaf_r-GY6KVMk95R-jip-aMdr2y20-WwNL84jQe0PvD1Q%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CACX78vaf_r-GY6KVMk95R-jip-aMdr2y20-WwNL84jQe0PvD1Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elasticsearch/muIKhFkrxFc/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAEM624audypF5E%2BDyZcUJmf%2BtddunbLswKPwEJMyHQ_X%2B2xdEw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAEM624audypF5E%2BDyZcUJmf%2BtddunbLswKPwEJMyHQ_X%2B2xdEw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Best winds, -Robin- ~:) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CACX78vYbV7%2BJ7c7_aSjzh7UL4e3vykgws9pFMevjZetarcEGJA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
