No Linux does the right thing by default. We have an operations page on the site that gives all the details on our setup but there is nothing setup.
-Jay On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:16 AM, S Ahmed <sahmed1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you tune the o/s dedicated memory for page cache? Or that's all > automatic.... > > It would be cool if linkedin posted some of their server level tweaks if > that is critical to getting the most out of zero copy and kafka in general > :) > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Memory required for JVM is also low (2-4GB heap size). Most of the memory >> is used for pagecache. >> >> Jun >> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:03 AM, S Ahmed <sahmed1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > What about memory? I know you guys have 24GB of ram per server? >> > >> > Basically I'm juggling between going with a dedicated box (which has >> faster >> > IO), or ec2 which has slower IO but cheaper on the ram side (way >> cheaper!). >> > >> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > It all depends on the volume of the data. At LinkedIn, we observed that >> > the >> > > io load on a typical Kafka broker is not high. >> > > >> > > Jun >> > > >> > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:13 AM, S Ahmed <sahmed1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I was thinking (and after doing some tests on dedicated and ec2), >> would >> > > you >> > > > still say kafka is io intensive? >> > > > >> > > > Considering writes are batched every x seconds, and you have a single >> > > kafka >> > > > server on a given instance, and consumers are just streaming the data >> > in >> > > > sequential order (the disk head isn't jumping around), is it safe to >> > say >> > > > kafka isn't that io intensive to the point that running it on ec2 >> > should >> > > be >> > > > just as good as dedicated hardware? >> > > > >> > > > I was getting pretty good results on ec2 so this thought came to >> me... >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
