[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2216?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16733942#comment-16733942
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on ARTEMIS-2216:
-----------------------------------------

Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
  
    > If we return `true` from the dirty read we can just return it, while if 
we found the it `false` we could attempt to enter the read lock and validate 
that's not paging for real.
    
    Ive literally gone through every case, what occurs is we call isPaging 
within an if statement, and then do some logic after, as such anyhow any action 
we do within these if statements anyhow will be based off a stale state. 
    
    Im starting to just think we make isPaging not use a read lock  (aka make 
it dirty), as its only used in queueimpl like mentioned and for queuecontrol 
(aka the admin gui)


> Use a specific executor for pageSyncTimer
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ARTEMIS-2216
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2216
>             Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 2.6.3
>            Reporter: Qihong Xu
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: contention_MASTER_global.svg, contention_PR_global.svg, 
> contention_PR_single.svg
>
>
> Improving throughput on paging mode is one of our concerns since our cluster 
> uses paging a lot.
> We found that pageSyncTimer in PagingStoreImpl shared the same executor with 
> pageCursorProvider from thread pool. In heavy load scenario like hundreds of 
> consumers receiving messages simultaneously, it became difficult for 
> pageSyncTimer to get the executor due to race condition. Therefore page sync 
> was delayed and producers suffered low throughput.
>  
> To achieve higher performance we assign a specific executor to pageSyncTimer 
> to avoid racing. And we run a small-scale test on a single modified broker.
>  
> Broker: 4C/8G/500G SSD
> Producer: 200 threads, non-transactional send
> Consumer 200 threads, transactional receive
> Message text size: 100-200 bytes randomly
> AddressFullPolicy: PAGE
>  
> Test result:
> | |Only Send TPS|Only Receive TPS|Send&Receive TPS|
> |Original ver|38k|33k|3k/30k|
> |Modified ver|38k|34k|30k/12.5k|
>  
> The chart above shows that on modified broker send TPS improves from “poor” 
> to “extremely fast”, while receive TPS drops from “extremely fast” to 
> “not-bad” under heavy load. Considering consumer systems usually have a long 
> processing chain after receiving messages, we don’t need too fast receive 
> TPS. Instead, we want to guarantee send TPS to cope with traffic peak and 
> lower producer’s delay time. Moreover, send and receive TPS in total raises 
> from 33k to about 43k. From all above this trade-off seems beneficial and 
> acceptable.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to