Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AC7200D37 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 23:00:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id B1193160BEF; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 22:00:22 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id D0C8E1609C8 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 23:00:21 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 97805 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2017 22:00:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 97717 invoked by uid 99); 9 Nov 2017 22:00:20 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:00:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id ADC6C1A4058 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 22:00:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.414 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.414 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5erTZyKOYqYj for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 22:00:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wr0-f169.google.com (mail-wr0-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id CCB1F6177F for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 22:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y9so6933757wrb.2 for ; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 14:00:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=S5czS4EPzyudRRTbVzTDeqtUFw1PHwRKUBWcHtklt4M=; b=gI0AuPCV9Ql97x0PouTfP+7PyP/NUICN5xDJl93YTUuKRcLNUtlgZKV2KevJq0UikI zLHTlx4/qVv+S1ujRJB/FgDbOcaEm7iinMZZ4T9kiZY2J6vIhKqAZUegZLBZICaWr0Er ciHlz3pj0jyOJ7qHT7HHbv2yDvDgSI5K2J7MxFnJUiAwv+UTlhoh26wLweOeTc/MVL/K xQSGvSYuGBRpBn/r3/DaRGC6KjL5ufzOSU75hivSgv5B6/ohcFcmKrRQo12kHykZSTM5 tLRLhEJFG7w1f35JT5brqQhESm7yWXLfYRMqeSXSXz5Bln00x8E3bUJt8ziM80TA5Cr+ Q7Ww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=S5czS4EPzyudRRTbVzTDeqtUFw1PHwRKUBWcHtklt4M=; b=S20Pd5wABdb8+sdRw7WB7lYeMVrpMIM7B6HkOaZinoRnMYq3kwdBDHMSKlZPzb8dlg 5MqxZUHLfXmTzLHP1YX6lbxNw4pSE4FopPTfS+lpQvfglhEPg/wL9msIHrKaA/rYe3x6 ezb7gQeD9L9ngyfYa3CrpjtY6PmOZTNxN+srEFVVV54VrdVNm9g97+PmV0YUhZJXKt7J m54mO0ixqvgeKZusYfZLpqtGyipZRgr95QtsK8x7Q9sbjy7n6xjZOXu2Z7UKjvJ/ebAK qIkKd2y+ByyX49KLg8+T1iP9xwB1W01IWWYTwJqDhpvXxWMlThEj23Tz9qb+uCQrGWzI 56Ww== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6UHps89CNyC1CjO8+DsMGFDJzc0q9GnZp1bfiP5tsgM1xbj2DT 38/FGA6El0dV+aflHTuRyt/H6QRZKhET+aDkDXw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SgzebP5lIC/v5b0nqepgl8oJDnvzXZ2gnxQlg7JAuA/kv2ZJWwwslECkxkIgUor/sc+fU5QdRJIahe+em1Wc8= X-Received: by 10.223.162.196 with SMTP id t4mr1636499wra.42.1510264815161; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 14:00:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.18.148 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:59:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1510223321288-0.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1510223321288-0.post@n4.nabble.com> From: Paul Gale Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:59:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Amq 5.15.2 slow queues with JMSXGroupID To: users@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ea074d31870055d93ed83" archived-at: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 22:00:22 -0000 --f403045ea074d31870055d93ed83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" A few questions: - what prefetch size are your consumers using? Ideally it should be set to 1 to prevent out of order messages. - what acknowledgement mode are you using? - as each queue supports a max of 1024 groups, by default, are you sure you're not blowing past this number? That might cause the broker to spend most its time repeatedly re-assigning groups to consumers. You did say something about millions of UUID value being seen per hour. - are you hashing those UUID values down so that multiple UUIDs map to the same group ID? - what happens when you force the broker to close all message groups so that it performs a re-assignment of all known groups to consumers? This operation is available through JMX. Thanks, Paul On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:28 AM, n.yovchev wrote: > Hello, > > We have been using AMQ in production for quite a while some time already, > and we are noticing a strange behavior on one of our queues. > > The situation is as follows: > > - we do clickstream traffic so when we have identified a user, all his > events are "grouped" by JMSXGroupID property (which is an UUID, in our > case, > we can have millions of these per hour) so we have some order in consuming > the events for the same user in case they do burst > - we use KahaDB with kinda the following config: > > > > > > journalDiskSyncStrategy="PERIODIC" journalDiskSyncInterval="5000" > preallocationStrategy="zeros" concurrentStoreAndDispatchQueues="false" /> > > > > > > - the broker is in a rather beefy EC2 instance, but it doesn't seem to hit > any limits, neither file limits, nor IOPS, nor CPU limits > - destination policy for this destination uses, very similar to a lot other > destinations that use the same grouping for JMSXGroupID: > > memoryLimit="256mb" maxPageSize="5000" maxBrowsePageSize="2000"> > > > > > useQueueForQueueMessages="true" /> > > > > - consumers consume messages fairly slowly compared to other destinations > (about 50-100ms per message compared to > other consumers for other destinations- about 10-30ms per message) > > - however, it seems we end up in a situation, where the consumers are not > consuming with the speed we expect them to be doing, and seem to wait for > something, while there is a huge load of messages on the remote broker for > that destination. The consumers seem to also not be neither CPU, nor IO > bound, nor network traffic bound. > > - a symptom is that if we split that queue to two queues and we attach the > same number of consumers in the same number of nodes to consume it, things > are somehow becoming better. Also, if there is a huge workload for that > queue, if we just rename it to suchQueue2 on producers, and assign some > consumers on it, these consumers are much faster (for a while) than the > consumers on the "old" suchQueue. > > - the queue doesn't have "non-grouped messages", all messages on it have > the > JMSXGroupID property and are of the same type. > > - increasing the number of consumers or lowering it for that queue seems to > have little effect > > - rebooting the consumer apps seems to have little effect once the queue > becomes "slow to consume" > > > Has anybody experienced this: > > in short: > > Broker is waiting a considerable time for the consumers who seem to be free > and not busy all the time. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User- > f2341805.html > --f403045ea074d31870055d93ed83--