qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What is the memory footprint of an Apache qpid queue?
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:33:07 GMT
I took another look at this today so I could guage its impact more
fully. It appeared to be the default setting used for TCP_NODELAY
which is causing the sluggish behaviour in this scenario (and a few
others), and testing today showed changing this got the values down to
2-3ms avg on my dev box from 42ms or 83ms (2nd run,1st run
respectively).

You might have noticed I started a discussion on the dev list relating
to changing this, but regardless of that outcome you can do so now
through modifying the value via your connection url by updating it to
this:
"amqp://guest:guest@test/?brokerlist='tcp://localhost:5672?tcp_nodelay='true''&maxprefetch='1'"

Robbie

On 7 November 2011 23:41, Praveen M <lefthandmagic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the update.
>
> I was supposed to mean 40 - 50 ms in my first mail about this issue :P I
> just realized that I had said 40 seconds instead. :) my bad...
>
> anyways, I'm glad that you think this can be improved. Thanks a ton for
> looking into this.
>
> Praveen
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I took a look at this and was seeing times in line with what you
>> observed (higher on one PC, lower on another). After some digging and
>> making a change based on a resulting hunch, I managed to roughly half
>> the times I was seeing on the faster machine. A small part of the
>> reduced times is indeed still spent on the stuff I mentioned below
>> that I dont think is always required, so hopefully that can be
>> optimised down the line once the addressing code is rewritten and thus
>> further reduce the times.
>>
>> I'd like to properly investigate the impact of the change I made
>> before I actually say what it is and then see whether we decide it
>> goes in as the default or not (you would be able to configure it
>> either way). I probably wont get to finish looking at it for another
>> few days, but I thought I'd let you know I have something in mind.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> On 7 November 2011 19:20, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 3 November 2011 01:26, Praveen M <lefthandmagic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Robbie,
>> > <snip>
>> > The order of 40-70ms per queue subscription is what I see.
>> > </snip>
>> >
>> > Ok, thas just a touch better than the 40 seconds you mentioned earlier :)
>> >
>> > I imagine part of this is related to some often-unecessary address
>> > resolution the client is currently doing against the broker, which
>> > hopefully should get fixed during some work Rajith is doing on
>> > redesigning all that stuff. Even then though, thats still slower than
>> > I would expect. I'll add it to my list of things to look at.
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
>> Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Praveen
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message