Although this is a test platform with a way less spec than production, it
should be enough for indexing 600 docs per second. I have seen benchmark
result of 150-200k docs per second with this spec! I haven't played with
tuning the template yet, but I still think the current rate does not make
sense at all.

I have changed the batch size to 100. Throughput has been dropped, but
still a very high rate of failure!

Please find the screenshots for the enrichments:
http://imgur.com/a/ceC8f
http://imgur.com/a/sBQwM

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ok, yeah, those latencies are pretty high.  I think what's happening is
> that the tuples aren't being acked fast enough and are timing out.  How
> taxed is your ES box?  Can you drop the batch size down to maybe 100 and
> see what happens?
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Please find the bolt part of Storm-UI related to indexing topology:
>>
>> http://imgur.com/a/tFkmO
>>
>> As you can see a hdfs error has also appeared which is not important
>> right now.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> What's curious is the enrichment topology showing the same issues, but
>>> my mind went to ES as well.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Merriman <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes which bolt is reporting all those failures?  My theory is that
>>>> there is some ES tuning that needs to be done.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could I see a little more of that screen?  Specifically what the bolts
>>>>> look like.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find the storm-UI screenshot as follows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://imgur.com/FhIrGFd
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Casey,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - topology.message.timeout: It was 30s at first. I have increased it
>>>>>>> to 300s, no changes!
>>>>>>> - It is a very basic geo-enrichment and simple rule for threat
>>>>>>> triage!
>>>>>>> - No, not at all.
>>>>>>> - I have changed that to find the best value. it is 5000 which is
>>>>>>> about to 5MB.
>>>>>>> - I have changed the number of executors for the Storm acker thread,
>>>>>>> and I have also changed the value of topology.max.spout.pending, still 
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> changes!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also,
>>>>>>>> * what's your setting for topology.message.timeout?
>>>>>>>> * You said you're seeing this in indexing and enrichment, what
>>>>>>>> enrichments do you have in place?
>>>>>>>> * Is ES being taxed heavily?
>>>>>>>> * What's your ES batch size for the sensor?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you're seeing failures in the storm topology but no errors in
>>>>>>>>> the logs.  Would you mind sending over a screenshot of the indexing
>>>>>>>>> topology from the storm UI?  You might not be able to paste the image 
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the mailing list, so maybe an imgur link would be in order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Casey
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Ali Nazemian <
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I cannot see any error inside the indexing error topic. Also,
>>>>>>>>>> the number of tuples is emitted and transferred to the error 
>>>>>>>>>> indexing bolt
>>>>>>>>>> is zero!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Ryan Merriman <
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you see any errors in the error* index in Elasticsearch?
>>>>>>>>>>> There are several catch blocks across the different topologies that
>>>>>>>>>>> transform errors into json objects and forward them on to the 
>>>>>>>>>>> indexing
>>>>>>>>>>> topology.  If you're not seeing anything in the worker logs it's 
>>>>>>>>>>> likely the
>>>>>>>>>>> errors were captured there instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Ali Nazemian <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No everything is fine at the log level. Also, when I checked
>>>>>>>>>>>> resource consumption at the workers, there had been plenty 
>>>>>>>>>>>> resources still
>>>>>>>>>>>> available!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Casey Stella <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seeing anything in the storm logs for the workers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 07:41 Ali Nazemian <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After I tried to tune the Metron performance I have noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rate of failure for the indexing/enrichment topologies are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (about 95%). However, I can see the messages in Elasticsearch. I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have tried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to increase the timeout value for the acknowledgement. It didn't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem. I can set the number of acker executors to 0 to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporarily fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem which is not a good idea at all. Do you have any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea what have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused such issue? The percentage of failure decreases by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of parallelism, but even without any parallelism, it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still high!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ali
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> A.Nazemian
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> A.Nazemian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> A.Nazemian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> A.Nazemian
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> A.Nazemian
>>
>
>


-- 
A.Nazemian

Reply via email to