activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Manuel Teira Paz <mte...@tid.es>
Subject Re: tcp and nio transport considerations
Date Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:36:32 GMT
Rob Davies escribió:
> Thanks for the feedback - please add a jira - but we don't generally
> do releases from branches.
> Your analysis looks correct to me - can you go through the issues you
> had with 5.1 ? - might be better to get you on to the 5.1/5.2 release
> asap
>   
Yes, we are planning to switch in the near future. However, we didn't 
have time to test a newer release. The last time we got into 5.1 lots of 
problems (among them, huge memory leaks) affected us.

Once we have time to go again into the 5.x road, I will try to keep you 
informed about the bugs we encounter.


Any further comment about the need to detach the doConsume part of the 
TcpTransport run() into a different thread? I'm going to give it a test, 
just creating an per-instance single thread executor (to avoid any 
potential out of order annoyances), locally into the run() method (to 
avoid overhead into TcpTransport instances not being used as listeners).


Best regards.

Manuel.

> cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> On 16 Sep 2008, at 16:13, Manuel Teira Paz wrote:
>
>   
>> Hello, I would like to share some thoughts and adventures about tcp
>> and nio transports to your consideration, hopefully waiting for some
>> feedback.
>>
>> We are using a 4.1 activemq compiled from the 4.1 svn branch. For
>> some time we didn't run into any important problem, but lately, we
>> were suffering some issue regarding tcp transport.
>>
>> The problem arises when the tcp buffer gets full during a
>> TcpBufferedOutputStream.flush(). When this happens, and probably
>> when all the consumers/producers are sharing the same connection, we
>> run into a deadlock situation, since the socket OutputStream writes
>> in locking mode. Meanwhile, no reader that could extract some data
>> from the socket to ease the situation is allowed to do its work,
>> since it shares the same connection locked in the write attempt. Do
>> you agree with this analysis and the chance that it could happen?
>>
>> As a solution, nio and its non-blocking socket management, selectors
>> and friends, seemed the way to go. Unfortunately, the nio transport
>> is not available in the 4.1 branch, but it was easily backported
>> from the trunk. Trying to use it, some issues arised:
>>
>> - Connection attempts were temporized, and the whole system worked
>> randomly and unresponsible. There were no deadlocks, but one symptom
>> was that transport.nio.SelectorSelection spent a lot of time waiting
>> for the socketChannel.register call to complete, in the
>> SelectorSelection constructor.
>> I don't know the exact reason, but it seems that
>> SelectorWorker.run() monopolizes the access to the selector doing:
>>
>> while (isRunning()) {
>> int count = selector.select(10);
>> if (count == 0) {
>>   continue;
>> }
>>
>> I didn't have the chance to check if this thread has greater
>> priority than the one running the SelectorSelection constructor.
>> Anyway, as a workaround I changed the previous code with:
>>
>> int count = selector.select(10);
>> if (count == 0) {
>> +   Thread.yield();
>> continue;
>> }
>>
>> and mostly everything started to work as expected. I was able to
>> connect consistently to the broker, using a nio:// transport.
>>
>> - The remaining problem I found is that a java test client (connect,
>> sends a message, and closes the connection) didn't close itself
>> correctly, and it did so using the tcp:// transport. I found two
>> possible sources for this problem:
>>
>>  a). NIOTransport doesn't close the selection on doStop. I think
>> this is needed to allow the SelectorWorker thread to finalize.
>>  b). Even after doing that, and since the
>> SelectorManager.selectorExecutor is the result of calling
>> Executors.newCachedThreadPool, the idle threads are not destroyed
>> inmediatly, but after 60 seconds. Since these threads are created as
>> non-daemon threads, the VM waits for them to finish. As a
>> workaround, I changed the instantiation of
>> SelectorManager.selectorExecutor to:
>>
>>   private Executor selectorExecutor =
>> Executors.newCachedThreadPool(new ThreadFactory() {
>>       public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
>>           Thread rc = new Thread(r);
>>           rc.setName("NIO Transport Thread");
>> +            rc.setDaemon(true);
>>           return rc;
>>       }
>>   });
>>
>> Hence, avoiding them to be created as non-daemon threads. However, I
>> suppose this could be dangerous, and something could remain
>> inconsistent. Another solution could be not to use a
>> cachedThreadPool, but this could hit the performance. What would be
>> the best way to avoid the client shutdown delay?
>>
>> Currently, changing to 5.1 or 5.2 is not an option for us, since we
>> run into problems in our previous attempts to switch. We need to
>> remain (at least while we don't have time enough to run a complete
>> validation of 5.1 or the upcoming 5.2) with 4.1 and the needed
>> patches to make it work properly.
>>
>> Also, if you want 4.1 to feature NIO support,  I could open a JIRA
>> issue attaching the patch. Anyway, any idea, comment or proposal
>> about the problems we run into and the exposed solutions will be
>> very welcome.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>>
>> Manuel.
>>
>>     
>
>   


Mime
View raw message