[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-8968?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17558554#comment-17558554
]
David Handermann commented on NIFI-8968:
----------------------------------------
It seems like the better way forward would be to implement streaming FlowFile
transmission in InvokeHTTP as described in NIFI-1687. Perhaps another
alternative would be to implement a new HTTP processor for this specific use
case, perhaps named {{PostFlowFileHTTP}} or something similar. A dedicated
processor would avoid complicating InvokeHTTP, which works well for general use
cases. With PostHTTP being deprecated for several years over multiple releases,
I agree a replacement alternative should be implemented before removing the
processor, but just removing the deprecation warning does not seem like the
best approach.
> Improve throughput performance for InvokeHTTP
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NIFI-8968
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-8968
> Project: Apache NiFi
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 1.14.0
> Reporter: Mark Bean
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: PostHTTP_vs_InvokeHTTP.json, PostHTTP_vs_InvokeHTTP.xml
>
>
> InvokeHTTP is the preferred processor to use over the deprecated PostHTTP.
> However, PostHTTP outperforms InvokeHTTP (at least in POST mode). A template
> and a JSON file have been attached to this ticket for benchmarking the two
> processors. Using this flow, PostHTTP was observed to have a throughput of
> approximately 5 times greater than InvokeHTTP.
> In addition, it was noted that InvokeHTTP had approximately 5 times as many
> tasks and 5 times the task duration for a given 5 minute stats window. And,
> the statistics of Bytes Read and Bytes Transferred remain at zero for
> InvokeHTTP; this area accurate statistics also needs to be addressed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)
