Can I close the WAL if i can tolerate any enries lost. if WAL can be closed, i
can use bookkeeper in different scenes.
原始邮件
发件人:Sijie guoguosi...@gmail.com
收件人:useru...@bookkeeper.apache.org
发送时间:2018年7月6日(周五) 16:11
主题:Re: latency of bookkeeper
I think your question is a bit not clear,
Hi (your name?),
first step
how does your client look like ?
WriteHandle writer = bookkeeper.createLedgerOp().execute().get();
BAD WAY
writer.append() ---> SYNC, will block until fsync on bookies !!!
writer.append() ---> SYNC
writer.append() ---> SYNC
writer.append() ---> SYNC
I think your question is a bit not clear, latency and throughput are two
kind of different metrics. Your question seems to be asking for high
throughput.
Anyway, I will try to explain the performance tradeoff between latency and
throughput and hope that helps.
Bookkeeper by default fsync the
But i should return the entry append success or fail for every entry.
Can I close the WAL if i can tolerate any enries lost.
原始邮件
发件人:Enrico olivellieolive...@gmail.com
收件人:useru...@bookkeeper.apache.org
发送时间:2018年7月6日(周五) 16:11
主题:Re: latency of bookkeeper
Hi (your name?),
first step
Oh! Thanks.
journalMaxGroupWaitMSec=2
every addEntry request will wait this MSec?
Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.
原始邮件
发件人:li.penghuili.peng...@zhaopin.com.cn
收件人:useru...@bookkeeper.apache.org
发送时间:2018年7月6日(周五) 17:56
主题:Re: latency of bookkeeper
Can I close the WAL if i can tolerate
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:58 AM li.penghui wrote:
> But i should return the entry append success or fail for every entry.
>
If you can design your application leveraging asynchronous calls, you can
return entry append success or fail without being blocked at waiting.
>
> Can I close the WAL if
