[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2216?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16736947#comment-16736947
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on ARTEMIS-2216:
-----------------------------------------
Github user qihongxu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2484
> @qihongxu @michaelandrepearce
> I'm running now a CI job: it will take some time, but when it will be
fine I will merge this
> @qihongxu After all the relevant bits re paging will be merged I will
send another PR with the same 2 commits I have sent to your branch: are you
available to give some help to check the effects of that PR on your tests?
> @qihongxu big thanks for all the effort on this!! And providing the
testing time
My pleasure :) We are glad to see any boost in perf, especially on paging
mode.
I will keep a close watch on the new PR you mentioned and ran some more
tests as we have done in this issue if needed.
Also thank you all for reviews and works on this PR!
> 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)
