Talos Test Scenarios and Results
Read/write test in synchronous mode, using Simple Producer & Simple Consumer
Remarks:
- 1 client, 8 Talos machines, 8 Hdfs, 8 HBase, Talos and Hdfs/HBase distributed, machine models are all 2U;
- Read/write is synchronous, each partition corresponds to one thread;
- ThroughPut indicates the client's exit/entry bandwidth;
- QPS is the cluster's total processing power, not a single machine's QPS
Scenario 1: Write-only, batch=1
Number of partitions |
Batch size |
Size of a single message (bytes) |
QPS |
Latency(ms) |
Throughput (MB/s) |
1 |
1 |
100 |
531 |
1.88 |
0.05 |
8 |
1 |
100 |
4040 |
1.98 |
0.40 |
16 |
1 |
100 |
7843 |
2.04 |
0.78 |
32 |
1 |
100 |
14883 |
2.15 |
1.49 |
64 |
1 |
100 |
27004 |
2.37 |
2.70 |
128 |
1 |
100 |
43537 |
2.94 |
4.35 |
Scenario 2: Synchronous read/write, batch=1
Number of partitions |
Batch size |
Message size (bytes) |
QPS (read/write) |
Latency(ms) (read/write) |
ThroughPut (MB/s) (read/write) |
1 |
1 |
100 |
599/495 |
1.67/1.88 |
0.06/0.05 |
8 |
1 |
100 |
4484/3960 |
1.78/2.02 |
0.45/0.40 |
16 |
1 |
100 |
8602/7582 |
1.86/2.11 |
0.86/0.76 |
32 |
1 |
100 |
16000/14035 |
2.00/2.28 |
1.60/1.40 |
64 |
1 |
100 |
25910/23021 |
2.47/2.78 |
2.59/2.30 |
128 |
1 |
100 |
25498/24196 |
5.02/5.29 |
2.55/2.42 |
Scenario 3: Write-only, batch=10
Number of partitions |
Batch size |
Size of a single message (bytes) |
QPS |
Latency(ms) |
Throughput (MB/s) |
1 |
10 |
100 |
518 |
1.93 |
0.52 |
8 |
10 |
100 |
3883 |
2.06 |
3.88 |
16 |
10 |
100 |
7547 |
2.12 |
7.55 |
32 |
10 |
100 |
14414 |
2.22 |
14.41 |
64 |
10 |
100 |
26337 |
2.43 |
26.34 |
128 |
10 |
100 |
41157 |
3.11 |
41.16 |
Scenario 4: Synchronous read/write, batch=10
Number of partitions |
Batch size |
Message size (bytes) |
QPS (read/write) |
Latency(ms) (read/write) |
ThroughPut (MB/s) (read/write) |
1 |
10 |
100 |
581/507 |
1.72/1.97 |
0.58/0.51 |
8 |
10 |
100 |
4419/3791 |
1.81/2.11 |
4.42/3.80 |
16 |
10 |
100 |
8421/7373 |
1.90/2.17 |
8.42/3.37 |
32 |
10 |
100 |
15686/13559 |
2.04/2.36 |
15.69/13.45 |
64 |
10 |
100 |
24806/21993 |
2.58/2.91 |
24.81/22.00 |
128 |
10 |
100 |
24288/23021 |
5.27/5.56 |
24.29/23.02 |
Scenario 5: Write-only, batch=100
Number of partitions |
Batch size |
Size of a single message (bytes) |
QPS |
Latency(ms) |
Throughput (MB/s) |
1 |
100 |
100 |
469 |
2.13 |
4.69 |
8 |
100 |
100 |
3493 |
2.29 |
34.93 |
16 |
100 |
100 |
6751 |
2.37 |
67.51 |
32 |
100 |
100 |
12800 |
2.50 |
128.00 |
64 |
100 |
100 |
23188 |
2.76 |
231.88 |
128 |
100 |
100 |
36056 |
3.55 |
360.56 |
Scenario 6: Synchronous read/write, batch=100
Number of partitions |
Batch size |
Message size (bytes) |
QPS (read/write) |
Latency(ms) (read/write) |
ThroughPut (MB/s) (read/write) |
1 |
100 |
100 |
546/458 |
1.83/2.18 |
5.46/4.58 |
8 |
100 |
100 |
4102/3433 |
1.95/2.33 |
41.01/34.33 |
16 |
100 |
100 |
7804/6530 |
2.05/2.45 |
78.04/65.30 |
32 |
100 |
100 |
14545/11985 |
2.20/2.67 |
145.45/119.85 |
64 |
100 |
100 |
22377/19219 |
2.86/3.33 |
223.77/192.19 |
128 |
100 |
100 |
22416/20545 |
5.81/6.23 |
224.16/205.45 |
Scenario 7: Write-only, batch=1000
Number of partitions |
Batch size |
Size of a single message (bytes) |
QPS |
Latency(ms) |
Throughput (MB/s) |
1 |
1000 |
100 |
252 |
3.96 |
25.2 |
8 |
1000 |
100 |
1814 |
4.41 |
181.4 |
16 |
1000 |
100 |
3347 |
4.78 |
334.7 |
32 |
1000 |
100 |
5683 |
5.63 |
568.3 |
64 |
1000 |
100 |
7467 |
8.57 |
746.7 |
128 |
1000 |
100 |
8366 |
15.30 |
836.6 |
Scenario 8: Synchronous read/write, batch=1000
Number of partitions |
Batch size |
Message size (bytes) |
QPS (read/write) |
Latency(ms) (read/write) |
ThroughPut (MB/s) (read/write) |
1 |
1000 |
100 |
310/246 |
3.22/4.06 |
31/25 |
8 |
1000 |
100 |
2110/1709 |
3.79/4.68 |
211/170 |
16 |
1000 |
100 |
3703/3007 |
4.32/5.32 |
370/300 |
32 |
1000 |
100 |
5152/4255 |
6.21/7.52 |
515/425 |
64 |
1000 |
100 |
5526/4765 |
11.58/13.43 |
552/476 |
128 |
1000 |
100 |
5553/4996 |
23.05/25.62 |
555/500 |
Read/write test in asynchronous mode, using High Level API, single Producer & single Consumer
Note: Using High Level API to test the write speed resulted in even better performance than synchronous mode, read performance will be no different than write.