activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] AciveMQ Protocol Buffers 1.0 and Apache ActiveMQ 5.3.0 releases
Date Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:42:31 GMT
FYI. Removed old release candidate from nexus and svn, and put a warning
message on the release notes page. A lot of people seems to be thinking it's
released.

Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net


On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Rob Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thats the problem - persistent Queue with no subscribers shouldn't block
> until store limit is reached - this is why flow control has been disabled by
> default now
>
> On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:29, Colin MacNaughton wrote:
>
>  Hi Rob,
>>
>> I didn't run such a test, but I'd expect that the queue would pretty
>> quickly
>> fill up and block the senders using the config snippet below since it
>> limits
>> the queue size to 1Mb.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Davies [mailto:rajdavies@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:25 PM
>> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] AciveMQ Protocol Buffers 1.0 and Apache ActiveMQ 5.3.0
>> releases
>>
>> Hey Colin - what results do you see with flow control on and no
>> consumers for persistent queues ?
>>
>> On 21 Sep 2009, at 21:01, Colin MacNaughton wrote:
>>
>>  So ran into 2 issues running performance tests:
>>>
>>> 1. I ended up tweaking the default config to limit destination sizes
>>> and
>>> enable flow control as follows:
>>>
>>> <destinationPolicy>
>>> <policyMap>
>>>  <policyEntries>
>>>   <policyEntry topic=">" producerFlowControl="true"
>>> memoryLimit="1mb">
>>>
>>>     <pendingSubscriberPolicy>
>>>       <vmCursor/>
>>>     </pendingSubscriberPolicy>
>>>   </policyEntry>
>>>   <policyEntry queue=">" producerFlowControl="true"
>>> memoryLimit="1mb"/>
>>>  </policyEntries>
>>> </policyMap>
>>> </destinationPolicy>
>>>
>>> The current default config was resulting in really high latencies in
>>> non
>>> persistent pub sub tests (> 2 minutes!). With the new settings
>>> throughput
>>> doubled and average latency dropped to 3 seconds.
>>>
>>> However, it seems like there is some resistance to enabling flow
>>> control by
>>> default: http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2318, as naïve
>>> users
>>> might erroneously interpret this as a hang.
>>>
>>> So there is a tradeoff here against guarding again naïve users and
>>> good out
>>> of box performance benchmarking.
>>>
>>> A possible compromise appropriate for the 5.3.0 release time frame
>>> would be
>>> to log a warning the first time flow control is triggered for a
>>> destination,
>>> to assist naive users in troubleshooting producer pauses.
>>>
>>> More long term, it might be worth introucing a more sophisticated
>>> mechanism
>>> for when we page to disk like only do so when there are no consumers
>>> connected. A policy similar to this is already being pursued in the
>>> amq 6.0
>>> prototype.
>>>
>>> I logged this as http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2400
>>>
>>> 2. Fan-in to dups_ok queue receivers:
>>> While running performance tests I I was seeing hangs in several tests
>>> involving dups ok queue receivers. My suspicion is that this is
>>> related to
>>> "too lazy" dups_ok acknowledgements. Changing the queue
>>> prefetchLimit to 100
>>> caused this problem to go away. This needs more investigation, but
>>> it seems
>>> like we can get ourselves in to trouble if the queue size is smaller
>>> than
>>> the receiver's prefetchLimit, and this should be avoid. It is also
>>> possible
>>> that there is something more complicated happening in my tests. I
>>> haven't
>>> yet been able to reproduce this outside my performance test
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> Logged as http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2401
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Colin MacNaughton [mailto:colin.macnaughton@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:49 PM
>>> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] AciveMQ Protocol Buffers 1.0 and Apache ActiveMQ
>>> 5.3.0
>>> releases
>>>
>>> Hey Dejan,
>>>
>>> FYI, I'm running the RC though the Progress internal performance
>>> test suite
>>> over the weekend. Will advise of the results, but it should be
>>> interesting
>>> to see how the new default config performs, and we can see if we
>>> need to
>>> tweak it.
>>>
>>> Colin
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: chubrilo@gmail.com [mailto:chubrilo@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Dejan
>>> Bosanac
>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:14 AM
>>> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] AciveMQ Protocol Buffers 1.0 and Apache ActiveMQ
>>> 5.3.0
>>> releases
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll modify tomorrow how we create source release and include
>>> protobuf
>>> code in it. I guess I'll need to tweak assembly-plugin and
>>> apache-source-release-assembly-descriptor, but have to research it
>>> more on
>>> how to do it. If anybody has any experience with this and would
>>> provide any
>>> pointers it would be very helpful.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> --
>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>>
>>> Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
>>> ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>> Blog - http://www.nighttale.net
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Hiram Chirino <chirino@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Yeah that that does not have the source tar ball for the protobuf
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Bruce Snyder
>>>> <bruce.snyder@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Hiram Chirino <chirino@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could you also post links to the source tarballs?  Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He already did:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/activemq-staging-030/org/
>>
>>> apache/activemq/activemq-parent/5.3.0/
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>> --
>>>>> perl -e 'print
>>>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>>>> );'
>>>>>
>>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>>>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hiram
>>>>
>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://fusesource.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Rob Davies
>> http://twitter.com/rajdavies
>> I work here: http://fusesource.com
>> My Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
>> I'm writing this: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Rob Davies
> http://twitter.com/rajdavies
> I work here: http://fusesource.com
> My Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
> I'm writing this: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message