Overview

According to PERF-534 It's been observed that DI's performance was improved greatly when DI Kafka topics' partitions were increased to 2.

In this testing effort, we'd like to see if increasing mod-pubsub's Kafka topics partitions from 1 to two would have the same positive impact on the Check In Check Out workflow as many mod-pubsub's topics are related to circulation. We will test CICO with R/W split enabled and disabled as well.

Summary

It doesn’t looks like changing of mod-pub-sub partitions to 2 helping much.
For some tests response times were faster, and for some tests were slower (-20ms + 50ms).
There is no big benefits when enabling Read/Write split on CICO in these standalone tests. However they may appear during real life usage and/or running several high DB load workflows (such as Data Import), as it will distribute load between DB nodes.

Recommendations

The only notable observation is that mod-pub-sub Kafka topics has naming pattern include mod-pub-sub version like:

ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.FEE_FINE_BALANCE_CHANGED.mod-pubsub-2.7.0
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.FEE_FINE_BALANCE_CHANGED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.FEE_FINE_BALANCE_CHANGED.mod-pubsub-2.10.0-SNAPSHOT

*which is same topic for different mod-pubsub versions.

If mod-pubsub gets updated frequently, then the old topics might still hang around and will accumulate unnecessarily. So possibly it's a good idea to exclude the version number from topic naming pattern.

Test Sets

Test #	Test Conditions	Duration	Load generator size	Load generator Memory(GiB)	Notes
1.	8,20,30,75users CI/CO	30 mins each	t3.large	3	2 pub-sub partition, R/W split enabled
2.	8,20,30,75users CI/CO	30 mins each	t3.large	3	1 pub-sub partitions, R/W split enabled
3.	8,20,30,75users CI/CO	30 mins each	t3.large	3	1 pub-sub partition, R/W split disabled
4.	8,20,30,75users CI/CO	30 mins each	t3.large	3	2 pub-sub partitions, R/W split disabled

Results

Below listed response times (average (avg.) 75 percentile and 95 percentile) for tests (8,20,30,75 users) with 1 and 2 mod-pub-sub Kafka topic partitions.

Also there is comparison provided between 2 and 1 partitions. Number ⁺ⁿ mean that particular response time is slower by ⁿ ms comparing with appropriate number from 1 partition test.

With Read Write split enabled

R/W Split enabled	CI						CO
	2 partitions			1 partition			2 partitions			1 partition
	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%
8 users	0.476	0.496⁺²	0.556^-4	0.476	0.494	0.560	0.763^-7	0.784⁺³⁸	0.890^-27	0.770	0.746	0.917
20 users	0.459^-4	0.477^-7	0.527^-12	0.463	0.484	0.539	0.740^-10	0.763^-10	0.845^-13	0.750	0.773	0.858
30 users	0.456⁺¹⁶	0.482⁺¹⁸	0.530⁺²⁴	0.440	0.464	0.506	0.747⁺⁸	0.770⁺⁹	0.848⁺⁶	0.739	0.761	0.842
75 users	0.526^-3	0.574^-6	0.707⁺¹²	0.529	0.580	0.695	0.951^-4	1.020^-11	1.187⁺²	0.955	1.031	1.185

*Here we can see that there is no significant difference in response times between 1 and 2 partitions of mod-pub-sub kafka topics when R/W split is enabled. For some cases it's better and for some it's worse so we can conclude that it has no pattern and having 2 partitions have no benefits in response times.

Read Write split disabled

R/W Split Disabled	CI						CO
	2 partitions			1 partition			2 partitions			1 partition
	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%
8 users	0.484⁺¹⁷	0.497⁺²⁰	0.561⁺⁷	0.467	0.477	0.554	0.759⁺²⁴	0.769⁺²⁶	0.926⁺⁷⁰	0.735	0.743	0.856
20 users	0.471⁺¹¹	0.468^-11	0.540⁺¹⁹	0.460	0.479	0.521	0.748⁺¹⁴	0.771⁺¹⁵	0.848⁺¹⁶	0.734	0.756	0.832
30 users	0.446^-7	0.472^-6	0.520^-2	0.453	0.479	0.522	0.727^-10	0.749^-9	0.824^-5	0.737	0.758	0.829
75 users	0.552	0.604⁺⁹¹	0.736⁺³⁷	0.522	0.513	0.669	0.977⁺⁴⁹	1.046⁺⁵⁴	1.220	0.928	0.992	1.120

*Here we can see that there is no significant difference in response times between 1 and 2 partitions of mod-pub-sub kafka topics when R/W split is disabled. For some cases it's better and for some it's worse so we can conclude that it has no pattern and having 2 partitions have no benefits in response times.

Comparisons

Comparison between RW/Split enabled/disabled with 1 and 2 partitions

Table below shows how many milliseconds will we save or miss if we'll enable Read/Write split on DB. (R/W split disabled response times are baseline numbers for comparisons)

Notable observations:

As shown here - there is a big difference in CPU usage pattern with and without R/W split. For now I doesn't looks like it helping much, and in most cases it makes performance worse. However there possibly will be performance benefits during real life usage and/or running several high DB load workflows (such as Data Import), as it will distribute load between DB nodes.
For now - no visible pattern to conclude if R/W split is working better with 1 mod-pub-sub partition or with 2.

R/W Split Disabled	CI						CO
	2 partitions			1 partition			2 partitions			1 partition
	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%	avg.	75%	95%
8 users	0.484^-8	0.497^-1	0.561^-5	0.467⁺⁹	0.477⁺¹⁷	0.554⁺⁶	0.759⁺⁴	0.769⁺¹⁵	0.926^-36	0.735⁺³⁵	0.743⁺³	0.856⁺⁶¹
20 users	0.471^-17	0.468⁺⁹	0.540^-13	0.460⁺³	0.479⁺⁵	0.521⁺¹⁸	0.748^-8	0.771^-8	0.848^-3	0.734⁺¹⁶	0.756⁺¹⁷	0.832⁺²⁶
30 users	0.446⁺¹⁰	0.472⁺¹⁰	0.520⁺¹⁰	0.453^-13	0.479^-15	0.522^-16	0.727⁺²⁰	0.749⁺²¹	0.824⁺²⁰	0.737⁺²	0.758⁺³	0.829⁺¹³
75 users	0.552^-26	0.604^-30	0.736⁺²⁹	0.522⁺⁷	0.513⁺⁶⁷	0.669⁺²⁶	0.977^-26	1.046^-26	1.220^-13	0.928⁺²⁷	0.992⁺³⁹	1.120⁺⁶⁵

Comparison between current result vs initial results

Initial results was made by measuring CICO performance on snapshot version of modules

As a base for current result we'll use CICO results with Read/Write split disabled and with one mod-pub-sub Kafka partition.(As it was also input conditions for initial testing).

Initial test	CI		CO
Initial test	avg.	95%	avg.	95%
8 users	0.467 534 (-14%)	0.554 1'041 (-87%)	0.735 909 (-23%)	0.856 1'462 (-70%)
20 users	0.460 600 (-30%)	0.521 1'196 (-129%)	0.734 1'110 (-51%)	0.832 1'807 (-117%)
30 users	0.453 834 (-84%)	0.522 1'708 (-227%)	0.737 1'590 (-115%)	0.829 2'777 (-234%)
75 users	0.522 825 (-58%)	0.669 1'566 (-134%)	0.928 1'960 (-111%)	1.120 3'142 (-180%)

*Here numbers like 534 -is numbers from initial (with snapshot versions) test. Numbers like 0.467 - is results of recent tests.

** We can see here significant difference of response times. Initial results were made on snapshot versions of the modules and recent results on released versions. That's explaining such difference in response times.

CPU Utilization

R/W split enabled	R/W split disabled

Average CPU usages per module for 30 users test:

Modules	CPU usage R/W enabled, 2 partitions	CPU usage R/W enabled, 1 partitions	CPU usage R/W Disabled, 1 partitions	CPU usage R/W Disabled, 2 partitions
mod-inventory	11%	11%	12%	12%
mod-inventory-storage	14%	11%	16%	14%
okapi	32%	32%	33%	33%
mod-feesfines	23%	23%	23%	25%
mod-patron-blocks	1%	2%	2%	2%
mod-pubsub	6%	6%	7%	8%
mod-authtoken	17%	19%	14%	17%
mod-circulation-storage	6%	5%	6%	6%
mod-circulation	6%	6%	6%	6%
mod-configuration	20%	24%	20%	26%
mod-users	42%	47%	38%	45%
mod-remote-storage	2%	2%	2%	2%

*In table above we can see that there is no big benefits from CPU utilization perspective when we have 1,2 partitions on R/W split enabled/disabled. As for mod-pub-sub CPU utilization - there is no benefits as well. We can see that CPU usage is on 6-8% level without dependency on number of kafka topics partitions and Read/Write split enable or disable.

Instance level CPU usage

R/W split enabled	R/W split disabled

Memory Utilization

Note: Here we can't see any sign of memory leaks on every module. Memory shows stable trend.

R/W split enabled	R/W split Disabled

RDS CPU Utilization

R/W split enabled	R/W split disabled

Note: Here we can see how DB load is distributed when R/W split enabled with when it's disabled.
At maximum for reader and writer CPU usage for DB nodes when R/W split enabled is ±25% vs when it's disabled ±45% for primary node.

Appendix

Infrastructure

PTF -environment ncp5

10 m6i.2xlarge EC2 instances located in US East (N. Virginia)us-east-1
2 instances of db.r6g.xlarge database instances, one reader, and one writer
MSK ptf-kakfa-3
- 4 kafka.m5.2xlarge brokers in 2 zones
- Apache Kafka version 2.8.0
- EBS storage volume per broker 300 GiB
- auto.create.topics.enable=true
- log.retention.minutes=480
- default.replication.factor=3

Modules memory and CPU parameters

Modules	Version	Running Tasks	CPU	Memory	MemoryReservation	MaxMetaspaceSize	Xmx
mod-inventory	20.0.4	2	1024	2880	2592	512m	1814m
mod-inventory-storage	26.0.0	2	1024	2208	1952	512m	1440m
okapi	5.0.1	3	1024	1684	1440	512m	922m
mod-feesfines	18.2.1	2	128	1024	896	128m	768m
mod-patron-blocks	1.8.0	2	1024	1024	896	128m	768m
mod-pubsub	2.9.1	2	1024	1536	1440	512m	922m
mod-authtoken	2.13.0	2	512	1440	1152	128m	922m
mod-circulation-storage	16.0.0	2	1024	1536	1440	512m	896m
mod-circulation	23.5.4	2	1536	2880	2592	512m	1814m
mod-configuration	5.9.1	2	128	1024	896	128m	768m
mod-users	19.1.1	2	128	1024	896	128m	768m
mod-remote-storage	2.0.2	2	1024	4920	4472	512m	3960m

mod-pub-sub Kafka topics

ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.FEE_FINE_BALANCE_CHANGED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.ITEM_AGED_TO_LOST.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.ITEM_CHECKED_IN.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.ITEM_CHECKED_OUT.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.ITEM_CLAIMED_RETURNED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.ITEM_DECLARED_LOST.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.LOAN_CLOSED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.LOAN_DUE_DATE_CHANGED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.LOAN_RELATED_FEE_FINE_CLOSED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.LOG_RECORD.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.QM_ERROR.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.QM_INVENTORY_INSTANCE_UPDATED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.QM_RECORD_UPDATED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1
ncp5.pub-sub.fs09000000.QM_SRS_MARC_BIB_RECORD_UPDATED.mod-pubsub-2.9.1

Folio Development Teams

Dependencies between mod-pubsub kafka partitions and CICO performance(Orchid)