Thanks for answer and help On Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Erik Weathers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Again, it depends on your topology how long it would take for the latency > numbers to stabilize. I cannot answer that for you. > In general, the "complete latency" is a pretty good proxy for the behavior > of the topology. If it's lower that's probably better. > > The capacity might be *related* to the CPU utilization (but not > necessarily, again, there are too many factors). If you want to measure > CPU utilization, you should actually measure the CPU utilization on the > hosts directly instead of trying to infer it from metrics like capacity. > Answering the Q of "how do I measure CPU utilization" is probably outside > of the scope of this list. That's a very general sysadmin / dev-ops type > of question, to which there is no single solution. > > - Erik > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:17 PM, sam mohel <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> Thanks to you I got it . but what should I do when I need to compare >> between two topologies >> >> I read about tools like ganglia that gave graph about CPU utilization >> should I use it to make measuring performance easier than numbers >> >> And is there specific columns in storm ui that should be greater than >> other or less than other ? >> >> Last question i read that I can measure CPU utilization by capacity >> column in storm ui >> But don't know what are numbers should I get . is there specific number >> that I can compare with it ? >> >> Sorry for my lot questions . I made search to get answers for those >> questions but couldn't get it well >> >> Thanks for your time >> >> >> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Erik Weathers <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> Not sure what you mean by "it". The latency numbers might *never* >>> stabilize depending on how your topology is written and the data it is >>> processing. >>> As I said, this is highly dependent on a bunch of stuff. The latency >>> numbers might stabilize within minutes if the topology is trivial. Or it >>> might take hours (e.g., if your topology is doing a lot of work that is >>> dependent on having data pre-cached). Or it might never stabilize if the >>> data flow and content is highly variable. >>> >>> - Erik >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:49 PM, sam mohel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks but how can I decide it . or what are the conditions that make >>>> me know it ? >>>> >>>> >>>> In Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Erik Weathers <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That *entirely* depends on your topology and environment. >>>>> >>>>> - Erik >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:27 PM, sam mohel <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I mean numbers which I got in complete latency and execute latency . >>>>>> when I submitted topology those numbers changed every time I refreshed >>>>>> page >>>>>> of storm ui . when it becomes stable to measure performance of topology >>>>>> >>>>>> Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Justin Hopper <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sam, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which numbers are you speaking of? And by “get the numbers rightly”, >>>>>>> what do you mean by that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Justin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 2016, at 14:30, sam mohel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again. Last question about storm ui . when I submitted >>>>>>> topology numbers that appeared changed every time I refreshed page . so >>>>>>> how can I get numbers rightly ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, March 21, 2016, Justin Hopper <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 2016, at 14:16, sam mohel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Really thanks for your reply . I will try it now . but I'm asking >>>>>>>> about that if I run supervisor with high core then it will give me high >>>>>>>> performance for topology right ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, March 21, 2016, Justin Hopper <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am recommending that you that try that approach first (storm + >>>>>>>>> zoo on core2 duo; super on i5). I would expect more thread contention >>>>>>>>> (decrease performance) if you choose to reverse the deployment >>>>>>>>> strategy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Justin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 2016, at 11:18, sam mohel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying . so I should run nimbus ,zookeeper on machine >>>>>>>>> core2duo and supervisor on core I 5 but Are results will change if I >>>>>>>>> run it >>>>>>>>> in reverse . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 21, 2016, Justin Hopper <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sam, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nimbus and Zookeeper mostly perform management of the cluster >>>>>>>>>> itself - not performing real work. Given your situation, place the >>>>>>>>>> Supervisor on the high-performant system (core i5). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Justin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 23:15, sam mohel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is there any help ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 21, 2016, sam mohel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have 2 machine one has core 2duo and other has core i5 . which >>>>>>>>>>> one should I run nimbus and zookeeper on it and which one should I >>>>>>>>>>> run >>>>>>>>>>> supervisor ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Should worker run on machine with high core or it shouldn't ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Appreciate your help >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
