|
International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
|
| Volume 187 - Issue 46 |
| Published: October 2025 |
| Authors: Ramesh V. |
10.5120/ijca2025925770
|
Ramesh V. . Evaluating Apache Kafka Performance and Operational Efficiency: A Comparative Study of ZooKeeper and KRaft Architectures. International Journal of Computer Applications. 187, 46 (October 2025), 12-18. DOI=10.5120/ijca2025925770
@article{ 10.5120/ijca2025925770,
author = { Ramesh V. },
title = { Evaluating Apache Kafka Performance and Operational Efficiency: A Comparative Study of ZooKeeper and KRaft Architectures },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
year = { 2025 },
volume = { 187 },
number = { 46 },
pages = { 12-18 },
doi = { 10.5120/ijca2025925770 },
publisher = { Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA }
}
%0 Journal Article
%D 2025
%A Ramesh V.
%T Evaluating Apache Kafka Performance and Operational Efficiency: A Comparative Study of ZooKeeper and KRaft Architectures%T
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%V 187
%N 46
%P 12-18
%R 10.5120/ijca2025925770
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Apache Kafka is a leading platform for building scalable, distributed event streaming systems. Traditionally, Kafka has relied on Apache ZooKeeper for managing cluster metadata and coordinating controller elections. However, the recent introduction of KRaft (Kafka Raft Metadata mode) eliminates this dependency by embedding a Raft-based consensus mechanism directly within Kafka [1] [6]. This architectural evolution raises key questions about the comparative performance, reliability, and operational efficiency of ZooKeeper-based versus KRaft-based deployments. [7] This study presents a comprehensive performance evaluation of Kafka's ZooKeeper and KRaft modes across multiple dimensions, including topic scalability, producer throughput, controller failover response, and memory efficiency. Through reproducible benchmarks involving 1,000-topic workloads, multi-threaded producers, and real-world failure simulations, the report analyzes the behavioral differences between the two architectures. The findings offer valuable insights for platform engineers, DevOps practitioners, and architects seeking to optimize Kafka deployments for high-throughput, cloud-native environments. [9] [15]