git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BK metrics


 
> The disks were under 60% utilization (not saturated).

>> 60% of bandwidth or iops? only one of the two needs to be saturated.
And which disk, journal or ledgers?
It is the disk busy percentage. Both journal and ledger disks were around 60% (journal was more consistent).

> Are there any benchmark results of BookKeeper that can be shared?

>> I don't have any to hand, but maybe someone else on the list does.

What key bookkeeper metrics that you would suggest to monitor? It will be nice if there is any documentation around the metrics that talks at a high level about what the metrics is about (in terms of how to understand/interpret) and the expectations around it (numbers on best/worst case scenarios).
RegardsVijay    On Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 11:34:39 PM PDT, Ivan Kelly <ivank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
 
 > @Ivan, for some reasons I did not receive your reply but found it in the email archives.

Are you subscribed to the list? I did see one mail from you show up in
moderation.

> At 80K request/sec throttling for record size of 1K, I am getting below throughput. The 99th percentile of `bookkeeper_server_ADD_ENTRY_REQUEST` and `bookkeeper_server_ADD_ENTRY` are around 350 ms. I am starting to see the lag when I increase the ingestion rate limit beyond 90 K/sec limit.

So this suggests to me that the metrics are reporting correctly.

> The disks were under 60% utilization (not saturated).

60% of bandwidth or iops? only one of the two needs to be saturated.
And which disk, journal or ledgers?

> Are there any benchmark results of BookKeeper that can be shared?

I don't have any to hand, but maybe someone else on the list does.

Regards,
Ivan