qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: how to scale (out) qpid
Date Wed, 20 May 2015 10:48:14 GMT
On 20 May 2015 at 12:00, Olivier Mallassi <olivier.mallassi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> my apologies in advance if I ask dummy questions and for this (maybe too)
> long email but *i need some help in regards with "qpid clustering"*.
> I have read some of the already asked questions on the ML and would like to
> confirm (or not) some points.
>
> *Overview*:
> I wanna use the Java Broker (mainly because I need to support several OS -
> linux, solaris, windows....) but I am wondering our to scale out (or how to
> cluster) qpid (target throughput will be around 150k events per sec,
> message size variable but less than 1kB, connections number is not known
> but dozens.
> I saw some numbers on the ML (like 70k events per sec for a single broker
> etc...) so it appears I will have to distribute my load on 2 or 3 brokers.
>

Are you using persistent or non persistent messages?  The throughput
the broker can achieve will obviously be very much tied to the type of
messages and the sort of hardware you are using.

> for now, I am not talking about HA.
>
> *1/ *I can cluster qipd using LVS or corosync. not ideal in my case because
> it relies on OS specific solution
>
> *2/* I noticed that the messaging api uses the first IP in the specified
> broker list (amqp://guest:guest@
> /default?failover='roundrobin?cyclecount='2''&brokerlist=")
>
> So I can use a custom strategy (round robin, zookeeper based), coded in
> java, to shuffle the brokers list and ensure to randomly distribute the
> connections (when they are established). it works for fail over, can be
> tricky if you want to be "elastic" but it should work.
>
> what are your thought on that approach?

Depending on exactly how your application works, that sounds
reasonable... you'd obviously need to ensure that every destination
produced to had consumers on...

>
> *3/* I am yet facing an issue because in some cases, I need to use node
> affinity (based on JMSXGroupID...). so given a value of JMSXGroupID, I need
> to ensure the same consumer jvm will get it.
> so I need to ensure that for a given JMSXgroupID, publisher & consumer use
> the same broker (which begin to be tricky, even using hashcode, in case of
> failover etc...)


At this point it might seem like it would make more sense for every
producer/consumer to have connections to every broker... and to do the
round-robining at a higher lever than establishing the connection.
The client can then make the choice on a per-message basis as to which
broker to send to - I have seen this pattern used elsewhere.

> Does federation (Dispatch Router) helps in that case (knowing it will add
> network hops, and so latency)? Is there any getting started/tutorial that
> can help better understanding the fixedAdress and linkRoutePattern?
>
> 4/ what about HA? It appears I will finish with a topology like
>             |                | A.Master --> A.Replica
> Client   |   "hash"  | B.Master --> B.Replica
>             |                | C.Master --> C.Replica
>

Unfortunately I'm not very well acquainted with Dispatch - so I'll let
others step in here.

-- Rob

>
> Hope I was clear enough. many thanks for your help/feedbacks.
> Regards

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message