The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of Stream Processing Frameworks
Abstract
The increasing need for real-time insights in data sparked the development of multiple stream processing frameworks. Several benchmarking studies were conducted in an effort to form guidelines for identifying the most appropriate framework for a use case. In this article, we extend this research and present the results gathered. In addition to Spark Streaming and Flink, we also include the emerging frameworks Structured Streaming and Kafka Streams. We define four workloads with custom parameter tuning. Each of these is optimized for a certain metric or for measuring performance under specific scenarios such as bursty workloads. We analyze the relationship between latency, throughput, and resource consumption and we measure the performance impact of adding different common operations to the pipeline. To ensure correct latency measurements, we use a single Kafka broker. Our results show that the latency disadvantages of using a micro-batch system are most apparent for stateless operations. With more complex pipelines, customized implementations can give event-driven frameworks a large latency advantage. Due to its micro-batch architecture, Structured Streaming can handle very high throughput at the cost of high latency. Under tight latency SLAs, Flink sustains the highest throughput. Additionally, Flink shows the least performance degradation when confronted with periodic bursts of data. When a burst of data needs to be processed right after startup, however, micro-batch system…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is only little empirical research evaluating and comparing the scalability of open-source stream processing frameworks.
“While there are several open-source stream processing frameworks promoting scalability as a core feature, there is only little empirical research evaluating and comparing their scalability.”
From Benchmarking scalability of stream processing frameworks deployed as microservices in the cloud (2024) · cites this paper as van Dongen and van den Poel, 2020
Other recent studies benchmark qualities such as throughput, latency, and fault-tolerance of stream processing systems.
“there are other recent studies that benchmark qualities such as throughput (Bordin et al., 2020;Chu et al., 2020;van Dongen and van den Poel, 2020), latency (Bordin et al., 2020;van Dongen and van den Poel, 2020;Hesse et al., 2021), and fault-tolerance (van Dongen and van den Poel, 2021b).”
From Benchmarking scalability of stream processing frameworks deployed as microservices in the cloud (2024) · cites this paper as van Dongen and van den Poel, 2020
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- 10.1109/BigDataCongress.2018.00043 · DOI
- kreps, 2011, Kafka: A distributed messaging system for log processing, Proc NET, 1
- carbone, 2015, Apache flink: Stream and batch processing in a single engine, Bulletin IEEE Comput Soc Tech Committee Data Eng, 36, 28
- 10.1145/3242153.3242155 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.14778/3137765.3137777 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/UCC.2014.15 · DOI
- 10.1109/IPDPSW.2016.138 · DOI
- 10.1145/3183713.3190664 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICIT.2016.7474816 · DOI
- shukla, 2016, Benchmarking distributed stream processing platforms for IoT applications, Proc Technol Conf Perform Eval Benchmarking, 90
- 10.1145/2517349.2522737 · DOI
- 10.1109/COMAPP.2017.8079733 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/cpe.4257 · DOI
- 10.1088/0143-0807/23/4/103 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Benchmarking scalability of stream processing frameworks deployed as microservices in the cloud
Henning, S., & Hasselbring, W. (2024) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111879 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- van Dongen, G., & Van den Poel, D.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems
- Published
- 2020-08-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1845-1858
- ISSN
- 1045-9219 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2183
- 2161-9883
- OpenAlex
- W3009076569
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6
- FWCI
- 9.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
- Keywords
- stream processing frameworks, benchmarking, Spark Streaming, Apache Flink, Kafka Streams, event-driven processing, latency, throughput, resource consumption, bursty workloads, pipeline operation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review