How Reliable are Streams? End-to-End Processing-Guarantee Validation and Performance Benchmarking of Stream Processing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stream processing systems (SPSs) provide processing guarantees to ensure reliability under failure. However, no related work exists that empirically validates these guarantees. In this paper, we present PGVal, a tool that can end-to-end validate guarantees of SPSs. Additionally, we introduce new metrics for SPSs, such as reliability, reliable throughput, and failure cost, in addition to a refined definition of latency that results in improved measurements. We benchmark three popular SPSs, namely Kafka Streams, Apache Storm , and Apache Flink. Our results show that the reliability of SPSs depends on many characteristics, such as data rate, data partitions, processing topology, and parallelism factor. An SPS configuration may not continue to provide reliable outputs when any of these characteristics vary. PGVal can also inject faults into SPSs to observe their impact on reliability and performance. We provide a comprehensive failure model for fault-tolerance benchmarking of SPSs and report on the impact of faults on the reliability and performance of SPSs. Our experiments show that SPSs' reliability and performance drop varies by fault. Lastly, we provide suggestions to increase the reliability and performance of these systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".