Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of herve.barrault@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJUL34MBB-zwBmCx=87WxSYa6y9yuqwX806e4n8m4a0fZJ13hQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJUL34Pi2yrkjNzjKYDeojhZK9KB=a0CHPxkRF1hD-tUtnLfrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJUL34MBB-zwBmCx=87WxSYa6y9yuqwX806e4n8m4a0fZJ13hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:47:09 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAJUL34N1oKtas0W=qRFgwh84waSCrZhU3PEhUum9E85pkB_bcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ performances and JDBC persistence
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Herv=E9_BARRAULT?= <herve.barrault@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e87c8d528e204aa2897b3

--90e6ba6e87c8d528e204aa2897b3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, i have done another experiment :
I have tried something to see the influence of messages on ActiveMQ
behavior.

I try to send 20 messages per seconds during 20 seconds into the broker and
use a processor to dequeue the messages.
If there is no other messages, it is ok
If i create a false queue with 16k messages it is always working
If i create a false queue with 24k messages it takes about 25 seconds to do
all the job.
If i create a false queue with 32k messages it takes about 55 seconds to do
all the job.

Is there something to do to avoid that a queue has an influence on other
queues?
Regards


2011/8/1 Herv=E9 BARRAULT <herve.barrault@gmail.com>

> Hi,
> I have looked to the purge mechanism to try to understand why it takes so
> much time to clean a queue.
>
> I have noticed something :
>
> ####
> CLASS org.apache.activemq.store.jdbc.Statements
> public String getFindMessageSequenceIdStatement() {
>     if (findMessageSequenceIdStatement =3D=3D null) {
>         findMessageSequenceIdStatement =3D "SELECT ID, PRIORITY FROM " +
> getFullMessageTableName()
>             + " WHERE MSGID_PROD=3D? AND MSGID_SEQ=3D? AND CONTAINER=3D?"=
;
>     }
>     return findMessageSequenceIdStatement;
> }
>
> public String getRemoveMessageStatement() {
>         if (removeMessageStatement =3D=3D null) {
>             removeMessageStatement =3D "DELETE FROM " +
> getFullMessageTableName() + " WHERE ID=3D?";
>         }
>         return removeMessageStatement;
>     }
> ###
>
> ###
> CLASS org.apache.activemq.store.jdbc.JDBCMessageStore
>
> private long getStoreSequenceIdForMessageId(MessageId messageId) throws
> IOException {
>         long result =3D -1;
>         TransactionContext c =3D persistenceAdapter.getTransactionContext=
();
>         try {
>             result =3D adapter.getStoreSequenceId(c, destination,
> messageId)[0];
>         } catch (SQLException e) {
>             JDBCPersistenceAdapter.log("JDBC Failure: ", e);
>             throw IOExceptionSupport.create("Failed to get store sequence=
Id
> for messageId: " + messageId +", on: " + destination + ". Reason: " + e, =
e);
>         } finally {
>             c.close();
>         }
>         return result;
>     }
>
> public void removeMessage(ConnectionContext context, MessageAck ack) thro=
ws
> IOException {
>
>         long seq =3D getStoreSequenceIdForMessageId(ack.getLastMessageId(=
));
>
>         // Get a connection and remove the message from the DB
>         TransactionContext c =3D
> persistenceAdapter.getTransactionContext(context);
>         try {
>             adapter.doRemoveMessage(c, seq);
>         } catch (SQLException e) {
>             JDBCPersistenceAdapter.log("JDBC Failure: ", e);
>             throw IOExceptionSupport.create("Failed to broker message: " =
+
> ack.getLastMessageId() + " in container: " + e, e);
>         } finally {
>             c.close();
>         }
>     }
> ###
>
> Could it be better to use only one request to remove a row, which is :
> "DELETE FROM " + getFullMessageTableName() + " WHERE MSGID_PROD=3D? AND
> MSGID_SEQ=3D? AND CONTAINER=3D?" ?
> or is there a case where it is not working ?
>
> Could it be better to create an index based on MSGID_PROD, MSGID_SEQ and =
CONTAINER
> (this index could be UNIQUE ?) ?
>
> I have checked that it takes 1min30 to dequeue my 16000 messages using th=
e
> purge method with these two modifications. I noticed that the page size i=
s
> 200 messages and it waits every 200 row to read from the database to be a=
ble
> to purge it, i never noticed this limit before.
>
> So it increases the rate from about 40 msgs/sec to about 170 msgs/sec to
> purge a queue (does it can also apply to other components reading the que=
ue
> ?).
>
> I don't have enough JMS broker and database mechanism knowledges to say i=
f
> it is a good or a bad idea.
>
> Anyone can help me for this ?
>
> Thanks for answers.
> Herv=E9
>
>
> 2011/7/29 Herv=E9 BARRAULT <herve.barrault@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi,
>> I am using ActiveMQ 5.4.0 with persistence (using an oracle 11g R2 serve=
r)
>> and i am doing some performance tests.
>>
>> I'm sending 16000 messages through web services (using one port) and it
>> takes about 1 min to manage all messages and fill the JMS queue.
>>
>> When i use a consumer to dequeue this queue (without adding new messages=
)
>> and fill another one, it takes about 6 min and 30 seconds. I was expecti=
ng
>> that i have some code which slow down the consumption.
>>
>> But i have tried to use the purge method and it takes the same time.
>>
>> Is there a way to increase the consumption rate ?
>>
>> Thanks for answers.
>>
>
>

--90e6ba6e87c8d528e204aa2897b3--