activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu>
Subject Re: Potential Bug in Master-Slave with Replicated LevelDB Store
Date Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:13:23 GMT
G1GC is great for reducing the duration of any single stop-the-world GC
(and hence minimizing latency of any individual operation as well as
avoiding timeouts), but the total time spent performing GCs (and hence the
total amount of time the brokers are paused) is several times that of the
parallel GC algorithm, based on some articles I read a couple weeks back.
So although G1GC should work for a wide range (possibly all) of ActiveMQ
memory usage patterns and may be the right option for you based on how your
broker is used, you may get better overall throughput from sticking with
ParallelGC but adjusting the ratio of YoungGen to OldGen to favor YoungGen
(increasing the odds that a message gets GC'ed before it gets to OldGen)
and the ratio of Eden to Survivor within YoungGen to favor Survivor (to
increase the odds that a message can stick around in YoungGen long enough
to die before it gets promoted to OldGen).  But you have to be confident
that your usage patterns won't allow OldGen to fill during the life of your
broker's uptime (whether that's hours or years), otherwise you'll end up
doing a long full GC and you'd probably have been better off going with
G1GC.

For our broker, we expire undelivered messages quickly (under a minute), so
in theory expanding both YoungGen and Survivor might prevent anything from
getting into OldGen and thus prevent long full GCs.  I'm actually going to
be doing this tuning this week, so I'll report out what I find, though
obviously YMMV since everyone's message usage patterns are different.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:25 AM, uromahn <ulrich@ulrichromahn.net> wrote:

> Another update:
>
> I ran the broker with the native Java LevelDB and found that I am still
> seeing the Warnings in the log file as reported before.
>
> However, to my surprise the broker seem to perform better and even slightly
> faster! I always thought the native LevelDB should be faster but I guess
> the
> access via JNI may be less optimal than using an embedded Java (or Scala)
> engine.
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Potential-Bug-in-Master-Slave-with-Replicated-LevelDB-Store-tp4686450p4686583.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

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