11–20 of 147 posts
EDIT: Thank you for clarification. It is a fair 3 node vs 3 node benchmark. Does this benchmark compare both 3 node Kafka against 3 node Redpanda cluster? It's unclear.
I -think- they are saying the original benchmark results done by RedPanda show a 9 node Kafka cluster being beaten by a 3 node RP cluster.
This new benchmark I assume is being done on identical hardware (i.e 3 nodes for both) just with less terrible Kafka settings.
> Redpanda end-to-end latency of their 1 GB/s benchmark increased by a large amount once the brokers reached their data retention limit and started deleting segment files. Current benchmarks are based on empty drive performance. This seems really disingenuous to use empty drive performance, since anyone who cares about performance is going to be caring about continuous use.
EDIT: Thank you for clarification. It is a fair 3 node vs 3 node benchmark. Does this benchmark compare both 3 node Kafka against 3 node Redpanda cluster? It's unclear.
I'm not sure which of us read it correctly. I -think- they are saying the original benchmark results done by RedPanda show a 9 node Kafka cluster being beaten by a 3 node RP cluster. This new benchmark I assume is being done on identical hardware (i.e 3 nodes for both) just with less terrible Kafka settings.
> According to their Redpanda vs Kafka benchmark and their Total Cost of Ownership analysis, if you have a 1 GB/s workload, you only need three i3en.6xlarge instances with Redpanda, whereas Apache Kafka needs nine and still has poor performance.
but scanning it again, I think they are in fact doing 3 node vs 3 node benchmark. It's just a bit unclear.
I'd like to see these on OpenJDK 11, since that's what Confluent is running on and the author makes a point of switching to 17 even though he works for Confluent. In either case, Confluent Platform is ridiculously expensive and approached the costs (licensing alone) for our entire cloud spend. I'd love to see more run-on-k8s alternatives to CFK.
EDIT: Thank you for clarification. It is a fair 3 node vs 3 node benchmark. Does this benchmark compare both 3 node Kafka against 3 node Redpanda cluster? It's unclear.
https://github.com/Vanlightly/openmessaging-benchmark-custom...
EDIT: Thank you for clarification. It is a fair 3 node vs 3 node benchmark. Does this benchmark compare both 3 node Kafka against 3 node Redpanda cluster? It's unclear.
I don't think we can get a less reliable or trustworthy set of performance tests than when someone's paycheck depends on the outcome of those tests. If Redpanda's performance were found to be better, would he really publish the test results?
TLDR: "I work at Confluent, the owners of Kafka, and I have determined through my tests that Redpanda's performance is greatly exaggerated." I don't think we can get a less reliable or trustworthy set of performance tests than when someone's paycheck depends on the outcome of those tests. If Redpanda's performance were found to be better, would he really publish the test results?
Personally I'm happy to see companies competing on performance like this. If one company puts out benchmarks I want to see their competition come in with their own benchmarks. Ideally we'll see improvements to both products, and a refined benchmarking suite and philosophy.
I'd like to see these on OpenJDK 11, since that's what Confluent is running on and the author makes a point of switching to 17 even though he works for Confluent. In either case, Confluent Platform is ridiculously expensive and approached the costs (licensing alone) for our entire cloud spend. I'd love to see more run-on-k8s alternatives to CFK.
I agree with Confluent pricing, we had the same experience. We switched to pub/sub and Azure Event hubs. I don't even understand why Confluent should price their offering so high. ITs not like Real time is an exclusive service that other platforms don't have.
We ended migrating to aiven after finding confluent pricing unreasonable.