activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kent Eudy <ke...@vizuri.com>
Subject Re: JMX connections creating high cpu and GC
Date Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:32:29 GMT
Did support have any suggesting other than wait for the patch?  That patch
has got to be coming out soon.  There are quite a few things that need to
be fixed.   Let see if I can think of anything.  I guess if you try the
failover protocol with no maxReconnectAttempts it will default to something
and still have the issue.

When are you slated to go live with these servers.  You could push RedHat
to see if they would provide the patch early.  Maybe just this fix and not
the full 6.2.1 release.

Kent

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Basmajian, Raffi <rbasmajian@ofiglobal.com>
wrote:

> After speaking with RedHat, it appears we've run into
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ENTMQ-1204.
>
> Since we're stuck using masterslave:(...) in our network connectors, our
> options to avoid this problem appear limited until Fuse 6.2.1 is released,
> unless someone can suggest an alternative.
>
> Raffi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tbain98@gmail.com [mailto:tbain98@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bain
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:41 AM
> To: ActiveMQ Users
> Cc: ashakya@vizuri.com; Kent Eudy
> Subject: RE: JMX connections creating high cpu and GC [ EXTERNAL ]
>
> The only way I can think of to try to answer that question is to use a
> profiler to see where the ActiveMQ process is spending its time.  JVisualVM
> would be an easy way to do that.
>
> Otherwise I think that question would have to go to the vendor or the
> support community for the security product.
> On Nov 11, 2015 5:28 AM, "Basmajian, Raffi" <rbasmajian@ofiglobal.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > I'll check today and report back.
> >
> > I suspect this may have something to do with enterprise security and
> > scanning software installed on the Linux host. Is there any command to
> > determine if the security process is interfering with the amq process?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: Tim Bain <tbain@alumni.duke.edu>
> > Date: 11/11/2015 1:41 AM (GMT-05:00)
> > To: ActiveMQ Users <users@activemq.apache.org>
> > Cc: ashakya@vizuri.com, Kent Eudy <keudy@vizuri.com>
> > Subject: Re: JMX connections creating high cpu and GC [ EXTERNAL ]
> >
> > Do you see the same performance impact from attaching JConsole or
> > JVisualVM?
> > On Nov 10, 2015 4:09 PM, "Basmajian, Raffi" <rbasmajian@ofiglobal.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm throwing a hail mary on this one,
> > >
> > > We've set up a broker cluster on A-MQ 5.11 (Fuse 6.2).
> > > Six master/slave pairs, full graph topology network of brokers; 12
> > brokers
> > > total.
> > > The cluster is brand new, no message activity; network connectors
> > > are active and working properly.
> > > Java 8, RHEL 7.1, 1gb/4Gb min/max
> > >
> > > Problem
> > > =======
> > > Using JMC (Mission Control) , we connect to a master to view JMX
> metrics.
> > > Almost immediately, cpu activity on the broker shoots to 100%. Heap
> > > consumption oscillates between 128Mb and 800Mb over 30s windows, and
> > > the rest of the day is generally unpleasant.
> > >
> > > From a thread view, nearly all cpu activity is consumed by numerous
> > > "ActiveMQ Task-xxx" threads; here's the stack trace from one, but
> > > they
> > are
> > > all nearly identical:
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ Task-220 [2656] (TIMED_WAITING)
> > >    sun.misc.Unsafe.park line: not available [native method]
> > >    java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.parkNanos line: 215
> > >    java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue$TransferStack.awaitFulfill
> line:
> > > 460
> > >    java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue$TransferStack.transfer line:
> 362
> > >    java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue.poll line: 941
> > >    java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.getTask line: 1066
> > >    java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker line: 1127
> > >    java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run line: 617
> > >    java.lang.Thread.run line: 745
> > >
> > > At first I thought it was related to this issue, and while I found
> > > five threads with the name "JMX Server connection timeout" on this
> > > instance, none of those threads are consuming cpu resources.
> > > https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1169753
> > >
> > > When we test this on a standalone instance with no network
> > > configuration, this problem does not occur. In our QA environment
> > > (the config detailed above), the broker config is identical to our
> > > standalone instances, the only difference is the network connector.
> > > Here's a snippet, there are
> > five
> > > total pairs like this (for six total m/s pairs in the topology) in
> > > each
> > > activemq.xml:
> > >
> > >             <!--        Network #1        -->
> > >             <!-- (#1) Queue network link  -->
> > >             <networkConnector
> > >                 name="queues_nc1"
> > >                 userName="${auth.user}"
> > >                 password="${auth.password}"
> > >                 uri="masterslave(tcp://whatever, tcp://whatever)"
> > >                 consumerTTL="1"
> > >                 messageTTL="100"
> > >                 conduitSubscriptions="false"
> > >                 decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="true"
> > >                 suppressDuplicateQueueSubscriptions="true">
> > >                 <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> > >                     <queue physicalName=">"/>
> > >                 </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> > >             </networkConnector>
> > >             <!-- (#1) Topic network link  -->
> > >             <networkConnector
> > >                 name="topics_nc1 "
> > >                 userName="${auth.user}"
> > >                 password="${auth.password}"
> > >                 uri="masterslave(tcp://whatever, tcp://whatever)"
> > >                 consumerTTL="1"
> > >                 messageTTL="100 "
> > >                 decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="true">
> > >                 <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> > >                     <topic physicalName=">"/>
> > >                 </dynamicallyIncludedDestinations>
> > >             </networkConnector>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail transmission may contain information that is
> > > proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is intended
> > > exclusively for the
> > > person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or
> > > disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the
> > intended
> > > recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient or their designee, please notify the sender
> > > immediately by
> > return
> > > e-mail and delete all copies. OppenheimerFunds may, at its sole
> > discretion,
> > > monitor, review, retain and/or disclose the content of all email
> > > communications.
> > >
> >
> > This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary,
> > privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the
> > person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or
> > disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the
> > intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not
> > the intended recipient or their designee, please notify the sender
> > immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. OppenheimerFunds
> > may, at its sole discretion, monitor, review, retain and/or disclose
> > the content of all email communications.
> >
>
> This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary,
> privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the
> person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or
> disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the intended
> recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by return
> e-mail and delete all copies. OppenheimerFunds may, at its sole discretion,
> monitor, review, retain and/or disclose the content of all email
> communications.
>



-- 
*Kent Eudy*
Technical Director | Vizuri
C: *( <%28540%29%20840-4923>703) 609-5222 <703%29%20609-5222>* | d: *(703)
318-7800 x <%28703%29%20318-7800%20x8190>8179* | keudy@vizuri.com
<zbelcher@vizuri.com> | blog.vizuri.com

Vizuri, a business unit of AEM Corporation
13880 Dulles Corner Lane, Suite 300
Herndon, VA 20171

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