+ Azhar (just in case)
> On 18 Oct 2021, at 11:30, Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi Azhar,
>
> -dev <mailto:d...@beam.apache.org> +user <mailto:user@beam.apache.org>
> this kind of question cannot be answered in general. The overhead will depend
> on the job and the SDK you use. Using Java SDK with (classical) FlinkRunner
> should give the best performance on Flink, although the overhead will not be
> completely nullified. The way Beam is constructed - with portability being
> one of the main concerns - necessarily brings some overhead compared to the
> job being written and optimized for single runner only (using Flink's native
> API in this case). I'd suggest you evaluate the programming model and
> portability guarantees, that Apache Beam gives you instead of pure
> performance. On the other hand Apache Beam tries hard to minimize the
> overhead, so you should not expect *vastly* worse performance. I'd say the
> best way to go is to implement a simplistic Pipeline somewhat representing
> your use-case and then measure the performance on this specific instance.
>
> Regarding fault-tolerance and backpressure, Apache Beam model does not handle
> those (with the exception of bundles being processed as atomic units), so
> these are delegated to the runner - FlinkRunner will therefore behave the way
> Apache Flink defines these concepts.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Jan
>
> On 10/17/21 17:53, azhar mirza wrote:
>> Hi Team
>> Could you please let me know following below answers .
>>
>> I need to know performance of apache beam vs flink if we use flink as runner
>> for Beam, what will be the additional overhead converting Beam to flink
>>
>> How fault tolerance and resiliency handled in apache beam.
>> How apache beam handles backpressure?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Azhar
