Also, you may consider checking a graph that we posted comparing the performance of BookKeeper with the one of HDFS using a local file system and local+NFS in the jira issue 5189 ( ).


On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote:

Hi Bill, I'm sorry, I missed this message initially. I'm sending below a table that gives you throughput figures for BookKeeper. The rows correspond to distinct BookKeeper configuration (ensemble size, quorum size, entry type), and the columns to different values for the length of an entry in bytes. The throughput values correspond to one client writing 400K records (we call them entries) asynchronously to a ledger. Finally, the table shows write throughput in thousands of operations per second.

                128            1024             8192
3-2-V   32.80   26.45   5.89
4-2-V   41.72   31.53   6.55
5-2-V   46.89   32.45   6.61

4-3-G   28.02   21.61   4.37
5-3-G   34.91   28.22   4.60
6-3-G   41.22   31.70   4.55

Let me know if you have more questions, I appreciate your interest.


On Feb 14, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Bill de hOra wrote:

Patrick Hunt wrote:

A bit about BookKeeper: a system to reliably log streams of records. In BookKeeper, servers are "bookies", log streams are "ledgers", and each unit of a log (aka record) is a "ledger entry". BookKeeper is designed to be reliable; bookies, the servers that store ledgers can be byzantine, which means that some subset of the bookies can fail, corrupt data, discard data, but as long as there are enough correctly behaving servers the service as a whole behaves correctly; the meta data for BookKeeper is stored in ZooKeeper.

Hi Patrick,

this sounds cool. Are there any figures on throughput, ie how many records BookKeeper can process per second?


Reply via email to