graphite-dev team mailing list archive

[chrismd <question136096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question #136096 on Graphite changed:
https://answers.launchpad.net/graphite/+question/136096

    Status: Open => Answered

chrismd proposed the following answer:
I've never actually tried using a RAM disk with Graphite. I've always
used RAID arrays of disks. I've heard good things about solid state
drives but never tried them myself. In theory they should be ideal
because they don't have the seek-time bottleneck that traditional hard-
drives do. But as I said, I've never tried it personally and I don't
know of any hard data that shows graphite's performance on such a
system.

If you're using epoll then the number of clients really isn't much of a
factor. It is extremely efficient at handling the network traffic (the
efficiency is thanks to the kernel). If the data you are sending to
carbon isn't changing, that is you're sending the same number of metrics
just from more clients, then you shouldn't notice much difference from
carbon's perspective. However if you are increasing the number of
metrics then that is different.

I can give you some more advice if you tell me a bit more about your system and the change you are making.
What is your current rate of datapoints being sent to carbon? What do you estimate the new rate to be?
How much cpu does carbon-cache currently use on average?
Are you using the plain-text protocol (port 2003) or the pickle protocol (port 2004)? If carbon-cache is using too much CPU, switching from the plain-text protocol to the pickle protocol can save you a bunch of overhead.

-- 
You received this question notification because you are a member of
graphite-dev, which is an answer contact for Graphite.