michaelkoepf commented on issue #4: URL: https://github.com/apache/fluss-benchmarks/issues/4#issuecomment-3154266455
@polyzos i think configurable workload in terms of messages/second makes sense. bytes/second can often be configured indirectly, if the underlying workload allows to configure the payload size. independently of my comment above, two more things. 1. the workload generator should have a safe guard that validates if the data generation process can actually keep up with the configured rate (messages/second). why? because the data generation process may involve computationally more heavy parts, e.g., prng. hence, the workload generation process may not be able to sustain the configured rate. since we do not know what machine the generator will run on, this is necessary even if the rate is not configurable. 2. this comment is maybe better placed in the issues that implement the benchmarks, but: i would prefer to keep the configurable parameters to a minimum. e.g., apache beams nexmark implementation has a lot of knobs, but not all combinations of parameters are sensible. keeping configurable parameters to a minimum limits the risk of third parties using the suite to produce meaningless benchmark results and avoids drawing potentially false conclusions from the benchmarks. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
