activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] AciveMQ Protocol Buffers 1.0 and Apache ActiveMQ 5.3.0 releases
Date Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:24:54 GMT
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/






Mime
View raw message