activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Tully" <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Scalability of 'Networks of Brokers'
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:16:33 GMT
It may be worth while creating a jira for this so that it can be
investigated a little further. This behavior will have an adverse
effect on a network of any size. It should (I hope,) be possible to
reduce the chattiness to some degree.

2008/9/5 Martin_Cornelius <Martin.Cornelius@smiths-heimann.com>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> i am currently evaluating the scalability of Networks of ActiveMQ Brokers
> with a large number of brokers. The actual drive behind this evaluation: I
> have to design a distributed system that is completely serverless. It shall
> be possible to switch of any of the machines in the system without alloying
> the distributed functionality. The number of active machines in the system
> might vary from only 2 to about 100.
>
> My current idea: Have an (presumably embedded) ActiveMQ Broker running on
> any of the machines, and let all this Brokers form a 'Network of Brokers'
> (abbreviated NOB in the follwing)
>
> So far, i found that in an NOB a message is forwarded only to those brokers
> where at least one client has subscribed to the topic resp. queue the
> message is sent to. Really fine. If a client subscribes to a queue, the
> broker where the subscription is made sends a single short control-message
> to all other brokers of the NOB. That would still allow for thousands of
> brokers, fine again.
>
> However, i just realized one fact that may compromise scalabilty: If a
> client subscribes to a  topic, the broker where the subscription is done
> sends a not-so-short control-message to all other brokers. So far not too
> bad, but now comes the problem: Every broker seems to react on this
> control-message by sending another not-so-short control-message to all other
> brokers. This means, if N brokers are present, every subscription to a topic
> results in about (N-1)*N*2 control-messages (The additional factor two comes
> from the fact, that the final recipient-broker seems to send another
> response control-message). BTW, The length of the control-messages being
> sent seems to be closely related to the string length of the topic name.
>
> I have verified this behaviour with only up to 6 brokers, so i'm not totally
> shure if it will extrapolate to a larger number, but i suspect it does. This
> would mean, that with e.g. 100 Brokers every subscription to a topic would
> result in 100*99*2 control messages being sent. If a single control message
> has about 400 bytes (what i observed), this means a single subscription to a
> topic would result in about 8 Megabyte network traffic. This might even be
> sustainable, but the quadratic order kills scalabilty -- with 1000 Brokers
> we would have to transfer about 1 Gigabyte, what is no longer feasible.
>
> Finally, my questions: Is there any configuration option by which this
> quadratic order can be avoided, is my idea simply foolish, or are my
> conclusions wrong ? Note that i gained my conclusions more or less
> 'empirically' using wireshark.
>
> thanks for any advice, Martin
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Scalability-of-%27Networks-of-Brokers%27-tp19335699p19335699.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Mime
View raw message