Dacris Benchmarks: Comprehensive Performance Results and AnalysisDacris is an open-source benchmarking suite designed to evaluate performance across distributed data-processing systems, machine-learning workloads, and storage layers. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of Dacris benchmark results, explains methodology, discusses key performance metrics, examines results across hardware and software configurations, and provides recommendations for interpreting and applying findings in production environments.
Overview of Dacris
Dacris focuses on realistic, repeatable workloads that reflect modern data pipelines: ingestion, transformation, model training/inference, and storage access. It supports modular workloads, allowing users to plug in different engines (e.g., Spark, Flink, Ray), file systems (e.g., local FS, S3, HDFS), and hardware backends (CPU-only, GPU-accelerated, NVMe, RDMA-capable networks).
Key design goals:
- Reproducibility: deterministic inputs and versioned workloads.
- Extensibility: pluggable components and configurable scenarios.
- Observability: rich telemetry collection (latency percentiles, resource utilization, I/O patterns).
- Realism: mixes of streaming and batch jobs, mixed read/write ratios, model training with real datasets.
Benchmarking Methodology
A rigorous methodology is essential to produce meaningful results. Dacris follows these core steps:
-
Workload selection and parametrization
- Choose representative workloads: ETL batch jobs, streaming joins, feature engineering, model training (e.g., gradient-boosted trees, transformer fine-tuning), and inference serving.
- Parameterize dataset size, cardinality, parallelism, and checkpointing frequency.
-
Environment setup
- Standardize OS, runtime versions (JVM, Python), and container images.
- Isolate test clusters to reduce noisy neighbors.
- Use versioned drivers and connectors for storage systems.
-
Metrics collected
- Throughput (records/sec, MB/sec)
- Latency (P50, P95, P99)
- Completion time for batch jobs
- Resource utilization (CPU, GPU, memory, network)
- I/O characteristics (IOPS, bandwidth, read/write ratios)
- Cost estimates (cloud instance-hour cost per workload)
-
Repetition and statistical reporting
- Run each scenario multiple times, discard warm-up runs, and report mean and variance.
- Present confidence intervals for critical metrics.
-
Observability and tracing
- Collect distributed traces to identify bottlenecks.
- Capture GC pauses, thread contention, and system-level counters.
Key Metrics Explained
- Throughput: measures work processed per unit time. For streaming systems, stable throughput under load is crucial. For training, throughput often measured in samples/sec or tokens/sec.
- Latency percentiles: P95 / P99 indicate tail latency and help detect stragglers.
- Resource efficiency: throughput per CPU core or per GPU; important for cost-aware deployments.
- Scalability: how performance changes with added nodes or increased parallelism.
- Stability: variance across runs and sensitivity to data skew or failure scenarios.
Test Matrix: Hardware and Software Configurations
A typical Dacris test matrix includes varying:
- Compute: 8–128 vCPU instances, single vs multi-GPU (A100/RTX-series), memory-optimized instances.
- Storage: HDD, SATA SSD, NVMe, EBS gp3, S3 (object), HDFS.
- Networking: 10 Gbps vs 100 Gbps, with and without RDMA.
- Engines: Spark 3.x, Flink 1.15+, Ray 2.x, Dask, TensorFlow/PyTorch for training/inference.
- Data formats: CSV, Parquet, Avro, ORC, Arrow IPC.
Representative Results (Summarized)
Note: numbers below are illustrative to explain trends; specific results depend on setup, versions, and dataset.
-
Batch ETL (Parquet transform, 1 TB dataset)
- NVMe local SSDs: 3.2× faster than SATA SSDs for read-heavy transforms.
- Spark 3.3 with whole-stage codegen performed ~25% faster than Spark 2.x.
- Increasing parallelism beyond node CPU count showed diminishing returns due to I/O contention.
-
Streaming join (10M events/sec ingest, 5-minute watermark)
- Flink with RocksDB state backend and local SSD achieved stable P99 latencies under 150 ms.
- Network bandwidth was primary bottleneck; upgrading 10 Gbps → 100 Gbps reduced tail latency by 40–60% under peak.
-
Model training (ResNet-50, ImageNet-scale)
- Single A100 GPU: ~2.5× throughput improvement over V100 for mixed-precision training.
- Data pipeline (prefetch + NVMe cache) improved GPU utilization from 60% → 92%, reducing epoch time by ~37%.
-
Inference (Transformer serving)
- Batch sizes >16 improved throughput but increased P99 latency nonlinearly.
- CPU inference on large instances (many cores) matched small GPU instances for small models (<200M params) when using optimized kernels (ONNX Runtime / OpenVINO).
-
Storage cost vs performance
- S3 object store: lower cost but higher and more variable latency; suitable for cold/archival data.
- NVMe + local caches: highest throughput and lowest latency; higher per-GB cost but better for hot data and training.
Bottleneck Analysis and Common Failure Modes
- I/O saturation: Many workloads shift bottlenecks to storage; using faster SSDs, parallel reads, and columnar formats (Parquet) alleviates pressure.
- Network hot spots: Skewed partitions or shuffle-heavy operations concentrate traffic; solutions include better partitioning keys, adaptive shuffle, and higher-bandwidth networks.
- GC and JVM tuning: For Java-based engines (Spark/Flink), improper GC causes long pauses; use G1/Shard-aware tunings and monitor allocation rates.
- Data pipeline starvation: GPUs idle due to slow preprocessing — use parallel readers, prefetch, and local caches.
- Configuration drift: Small changes in connector versions or JVM flags can change performance; pin versions and use IaC to reproduce environments.
Best Practices for Running Dacris Benchmarks
- Reproduce production patterns: use realistic data distributions, cardinalities, and failure scenarios.
- Start small, then scale: profile single-node runs to identify hotspots before scaling.
- Isolate variables: change one factor at a time (storage, network, engine version).
- Automate runs and collection: use CI/CD pipelines to run periodic benchmarks and detect regressions.
- Use cost-normalized metrics: report throughput per dollar-hour to compare cloud instance types fairly.
- Capture traces and logs: structured logs and traces make bottleneck diagnosis faster.
Practical Recommendations by Workload
-
ETL/batch transforms
- Use columnar formats (Parquet/ORC) with predicate pushdown.
- Prefer NVMe/EBS gp3 with provisioned IOPS for heavy I/O.
- Tune shuffle partitions to match cluster parallelism.
-
Streaming
- Use stateful backends with local persistence (RocksDB + SSD).
- Ensure sufficient network bandwidth and partitioning strategy to avoid hotspots.
- Implement backpressure-aware producers.
-
Training
- Optimize data pipeline: prefetch, mixed precision, and sharded datasets.
- Use multi-GPU with NVLink/NCCL for large models.
- Monitor GPU utilization and eliminate CPU-bound stages.
-
Inference
- Right-size batch size for latency targets.
- Use model quantization/compiled runtimes to reduce compute.
- Employ autoscaling and request routing (GPU vs CPU) by model size.
Interpreting and Presenting Results
- Always report confidence intervals and the number of runs.
- Use both aggregate and percentile metrics—averages hide tail behavior.
- Normalize results to a baseline configuration to show relative improvements.
- Provide cost per unit-of-work alongside raw throughput to guide procurement.
Limitations and Caveats
- Benchmarks are approximations: real production workloads can differ in unpredictable ways (data skew, mixed workloads).
- Hardware differences, driver versions, and cloud tenancy can affect repeatability.
- Dacris focuses on performance; it does not directly evaluate reliability, security, or maintainability—those need separate testing.
Future Directions for Dacris
- Expand support for more ML accelerators (TPUs, Habana).
- Add synthetic workload generators that mimic long-tail user behavior.
- Integrate automated root-cause analysis using traces and ML.
- Provide community-maintained result dashboards and reproducible benchmark recipes.
Conclusion
Dacris benchmarks provide a structured, extensible way to evaluate data-processing and ML system performance across a variety of workloads and environments. The most actionable insights come from carefully controlled experiments that isolate variables, couple performance metrics with cost, and include detailed observability. Use Dacris results as a decision-making input—complemented by production testing—to choose hardware, storage, and software configurations that best meet latency, throughput, and cost objectives.
Leave a Reply