You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Sarama Version: 4f47ee4
Kafka Version: 0.8.2.1
Go Version: 1.6
Problem Description
We build off Sarama's master for various reasons that were needed at one point but probably not now. Everything has been smooth up until a week ago, where performance seemed to fall off a cliff for us (from 60k msg/s to 3k msg/s).
I began to notice it started to take almost exactly 100ms for us to retrieve a new message off the Consumer channel (which is a problem for us because it takes ~3ms for us to process a message). Since it took 100ms, I guessed the problem was with MaxProcessingTime, and seeing how a recent change included this value, we reverted to an earlier commit and that fixed it.
I traced it back to this commit: 906ed72 so there seems to be a logic issue in how this was implemented.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Note that it is not possible to use Reset's return value correctly, as there is a race condition between draining the channel and the new timer expiring. Reset should always be used in concert with Stop, as described above. The return value exists to preserve compatibility with existing programs.
Versions
Sarama Version: 4f47ee4
Kafka Version: 0.8.2.1
Go Version: 1.6
Problem Description
We build off Sarama's master for various reasons that were needed at one point but probably not now. Everything has been smooth up until a week ago, where performance seemed to fall off a cliff for us (from 60k msg/s to 3k msg/s).
I began to notice it started to take almost exactly 100ms for us to retrieve a new message off the Consumer channel (which is a problem for us because it takes ~3ms for us to process a message). Since it took 100ms, I guessed the problem was with
MaxProcessingTime
, and seeing how a recent change included this value, we reverted to an earlier commit and that fixed it.I traced it back to this commit: 906ed72 so there seems to be a logic issue in how this was implemented.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: