[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2706?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robbie Gemmell updated ARTEMIS-2706:
------------------------------------
Description:
The broker is splitting larger messages into an unexpectedly large number of
transfer frames when sending to consuming clients.
For example, on a test of sending a 1MB message, with the broker having
advertised its own max frame size of 131072 (a limit which it also uses to
govern its max outgoing frame sizes, thus not reaching the clients advertised
purely-coincidental 1MB max frame size), the broker is seen to send transfer
frames including only up to 1024 bytes of message payload at a time.
It can be seen that the message being sent by the original producer used frames
with up to 131050 bytes of payload within the transfer frames, in keeping with
the brokers 131072 max frame size (which includes the frame heading and
performative itself):
{noformat}
[417713843:1] -> Transfer{handle=0, deliveryId=0, deliveryTag=\x00,
messageFormat=0, settled=false, more=true, rcvSettleMode=null, state=null,
resume=false, aborted=false, batchable=false} (131050)
"\x00Sr\xc1)\x04\xa3\x0ex-opt-jms-destQ\x00\xa3\x12x-opt-jms-msg-typeQ\x03\x00Ss\xd0\x00\x00\x00r\x00\x00\x00\x0a\xa1/ID:947e3b66-0d17-4492-8d34-de9050aa1533:1:1:1-1@\xa1\x12testSend1MBMessage@@@\xa3\x18application/octet-stream@@\x83\x00\x00\x01qt\x0b\xe2\x86\x00Su\xb0\x00\x10\x00\x00\x98"\xeb\xfd\x84\xe0\xf8\xb0m9S\x97\xb4\x85iZ_\xa2~\x0e\x00B\x87\x9f\xa46\xe2\xfc\xd0\x9c\xf25[H\x82\x1f3x'\xcf\x0f\xab\x0fq0U^b\x1b\xd2d\x1c\xdcG\xcdLj\xf8!-\xef\xb0nP\x04y\xf7\xb8\xaa\x0d\x09\x83\xba\xd57\xef.\xb1\x1aM\xb9#\xdc\x09\xa5\xa1\xacC\xe1\x18\x14Bln\xcfSu
\xc3\x1b\xd73\xad\xe1A\x81\x17\x13V\xaf\xa9\xa6G\xe1\x82Y{\xcd\x07\xfd\xdb\x11\xf2\xbe\xe6\xbd\xf4\xe9Xr\x18\x00\x12:\x88\xa1\xd0\xe5\xe3\xc1\xe5l\x9c\x8c\x99\xb6&\x01'p\xdb\xb8*\xa3\x87\xb2*on\x8f\x82\xa5j\xfc\xa8\xbd<\x06E\xe9\x888\x1d\x8e1\x17\xc3\x0cH1\x14]\x9f.ZU\xc2\x0eiG\x12T\x16\x99z\xab\xee5=r\xe6\x08\x9cZ\xde\xee\xe9\x93\x86#Y\xef$\xd8\xc9,\x04\xcf\xad\xed\xdeh<\xac\xe4\x82n\xf1k\x16\xcb3\xf0E\xf6
\xf5\xf0 \x04=g;#\xc1\xaf\xdb\xaa=\x93Bi^\xb0N\xd2\x83\x05`"...(truncated)
{noformat}
The same message going back out to the consumer, only uses 1024 bytes of
payload despite the brokers 131072 max frame size (which it applis to outgoing
frames too) being the governing limit in the scenario:
{noformat}
[1933829960:1] -> Transfer{handle=1, deliveryId=0, deliveryTag=\x00,
messageFormat=0, settled=false, more=true, rcvSettleMode=null, state=null,
resume=false, aborted=false, batchable=false} (1024)
"\x00Sr\xc1)\x04\xa3\x0ex-opt-jms-destQ\x00\xa3\x12x-opt-jms-msg-typeQ\x03\x00Ss\xd0\x00\x00\x00r\x00\x00\x00\x0a\xa1/ID:947e3b66-0d17-4492-8d34-de9050aa1533:1:1:1-1@\xa1\x12testSend1MBMessage@@@\xa3\x18application/octet-stream@@\x83\x00\x00\x01qt\x0b\xe2\x86\x00Su\xb0\x00\x10\x00\x00\x98"\xeb\xfd\x84\xe0\xf8\xb0m9S\x97\xb4\x85iZ_\xa2~\x0e\x00B\x87\x9f\xa46\xe2\xfc\xd0\x9c\xf25[H\x82\x1f3x'\xcf\x0f\xab\x0fq0U^b\x1b\xd2d\x1c\xdcG\xcdLj\xf8!-\xef\xb0nP\x04y\xf7\xb8\xaa\x0d\x09\x83\xba\xd57\xef.\xb1\x1aM\xb9#\xdc\x09\xa5\xa1\xacC\xe1\x18\x14Bln\xcfSu
\xc3\x1b\xd73\xad\xe1A\x81\x17\x13V\xaf\xa9\xa6G\xe1\x82Y{\xcd\x07\xfd\xdb\x11\xf2\xbe\xe6\xbd\xf4\xe9Xr\x18\x00\x12:\x88\xa1\xd0\xe5\xe3\xc1\xe5l\x9c\x8c\x99\xb6&\x01'p\xdb\xb8*\xa3\x87\xb2*on\x8f\x82\xa5j\xfc\xa8\xbd<\x06E\xe9\x888\x1d\x8e1\x17\xc3\x0cH1\x14]\x9f.ZU\xc2\x0eiG\x12T\x16\x99z\xab\xee5=r\xe6\x08\x9cZ\xde\xee\xe9\x93\x86#Y\xef$\xd8\xc9,\x04\xcf\xad\xed\xdeh<\xac\xe4\x82n\xf1k\x16\xcb3\xf0E\xf6
\xf5\xf0 \x04=g;#\xc1\xaf\xdb\xaa=\x93Bi^\xb0N\xd2\x83\x05`"...(truncated)
{noformat}
Whilst this is legal protocol behaviour it is fairly unexpected, and could be
rather inefficient depending on the size of the message and a receiving clients
behaviour reconstituting the completed message.
was:
The broker is splitting larger messages into an unexpectedly large number of
transfer frames when sending to consuming clients.
For example, on a test of sending a 1MB messsage, with the broker having
advertised its own max frame size of 131072 (a limit which it also uses to
govern its max outgoing frame sizes, thus not reaching the clients advertised
purely-coincidental 1MB max frame size) and, the broker is seen to send
transfer frames including only up to 1024 bytes of message payload at a time.
It can be seen that the message being sent by the original producer used frames
with up to 131050 bytes of payload within the transfer frames, in keeping with
the brokers 131072 max frame size (which includes the frame heading and
performative itself):
{noformat}
[417713843:1] -> Transfer{handle=0, deliveryId=0, deliveryTag=\x00,
messageFormat=0, settled=false, more=true, rcvSettleMode=null, state=null,
resume=false, aborted=false, batchable=false} (131050)
"\x00Sr\xc1)\x04\xa3\x0ex-opt-jms-destQ\x00\xa3\x12x-opt-jms-msg-typeQ\x03\x00Ss\xd0\x00\x00\x00r\x00\x00\x00\x0a\xa1/ID:947e3b66-0d17-4492-8d34-de9050aa1533:1:1:1-1@\xa1\x12testSend1MBMessage@@@\xa3\x18application/octet-stream@@\x83\x00\x00\x01qt\x0b\xe2\x86\x00Su\xb0\x00\x10\x00\x00\x98"\xeb\xfd\x84\xe0\xf8\xb0m9S\x97\xb4\x85iZ_\xa2~\x0e\x00B\x87\x9f\xa46\xe2\xfc\xd0\x9c\xf25[H\x82\x1f3x'\xcf\x0f\xab\x0fq0U^b\x1b\xd2d\x1c\xdcG\xcdLj\xf8!-\xef\xb0nP\x04y\xf7\xb8\xaa\x0d\x09\x83\xba\xd57\xef.\xb1\x1aM\xb9#\xdc\x09\xa5\xa1\xacC\xe1\x18\x14Bln\xcfSu
\xc3\x1b\xd73\xad\xe1A\x81\x17\x13V\xaf\xa9\xa6G\xe1\x82Y{\xcd\x07\xfd\xdb\x11\xf2\xbe\xe6\xbd\xf4\xe9Xr\x18\x00\x12:\x88\xa1\xd0\xe5\xe3\xc1\xe5l\x9c\x8c\x99\xb6&\x01'p\xdb\xb8*\xa3\x87\xb2*on\x8f\x82\xa5j\xfc\xa8\xbd<\x06E\xe9\x888\x1d\x8e1\x17\xc3\x0cH1\x14]\x9f.ZU\xc2\x0eiG\x12T\x16\x99z\xab\xee5=r\xe6\x08\x9cZ\xde\xee\xe9\x93\x86#Y\xef$\xd8\xc9,\x04\xcf\xad\xed\xdeh<\xac\xe4\x82n\xf1k\x16\xcb3\xf0E\xf6
\xf5\xf0 \x04=g;#\xc1\xaf\xdb\xaa=\x93Bi^\xb0N\xd2\x83\x05`"...(truncated)
{noformat}
The same message going back out to the consumer, only uses 1024 bytes of
payload despite the brokers 131072 max frame size (which it applis to outgoing
frames too) being the governing limit in the scenario:
{noformat}
[1933829960:1] -> Transfer{handle=1, deliveryId=0, deliveryTag=\x00,
messageFormat=0, settled=false, more=true, rcvSettleMode=null, state=null,
resume=false, aborted=false, batchable=false} (1024)
"\x00Sr\xc1)\x04\xa3\x0ex-opt-jms-destQ\x00\xa3\x12x-opt-jms-msg-typeQ\x03\x00Ss\xd0\x00\x00\x00r\x00\x00\x00\x0a\xa1/ID:947e3b66-0d17-4492-8d34-de9050aa1533:1:1:1-1@\xa1\x12testSend1MBMessage@@@\xa3\x18application/octet-stream@@\x83\x00\x00\x01qt\x0b\xe2\x86\x00Su\xb0\x00\x10\x00\x00\x98"\xeb\xfd\x84\xe0\xf8\xb0m9S\x97\xb4\x85iZ_\xa2~\x0e\x00B\x87\x9f\xa46\xe2\xfc\xd0\x9c\xf25[H\x82\x1f3x'\xcf\x0f\xab\x0fq0U^b\x1b\xd2d\x1c\xdcG\xcdLj\xf8!-\xef\xb0nP\x04y\xf7\xb8\xaa\x0d\x09\x83\xba\xd57\xef.\xb1\x1aM\xb9#\xdc\x09\xa5\xa1\xacC\xe1\x18\x14Bln\xcfSu
\xc3\x1b\xd73\xad\xe1A\x81\x17\x13V\xaf\xa9\xa6G\xe1\x82Y{\xcd\x07\xfd\xdb\x11\xf2\xbe\xe6\xbd\xf4\xe9Xr\x18\x00\x12:\x88\xa1\xd0\xe5\xe3\xc1\xe5l\x9c\x8c\x99\xb6&\x01'p\xdb\xb8*\xa3\x87\xb2*on\x8f\x82\xa5j\xfc\xa8\xbd<\x06E\xe9\x888\x1d\x8e1\x17\xc3\x0cH1\x14]\x9f.ZU\xc2\x0eiG\x12T\x16\x99z\xab\xee5=r\xe6\x08\x9cZ\xde\xee\xe9\x93\x86#Y\xef$\xd8\xc9,\x04\xcf\xad\xed\xdeh<\xac\xe4\x82n\xf1k\x16\xcb3\xf0E\xf6
\xf5\xf0 \x04=g;#\xc1\xaf\xdb\xaa=\x93Bi^\xb0N\xd2\x83\x05`"...(truncated)
{noformat}
Whilst this is legal protocol behaviour it is fairly unexpected, and could be
rather inefficient depending on the size of the message and a receiving clients
behaviour reconstituting the completed message.
> outgoing AMQP messages split into an unexpectedly large number of transfer
> frames
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARTEMIS-2706
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2706
> Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: AMQP
> Affects Versions: 2.12.0
> Reporter: Robbie Gemmell
> Priority: Major
>
> The broker is splitting larger messages into an unexpectedly large number of
> transfer frames when sending to consuming clients.
> For example, on a test of sending a 1MB message, with the broker having
> advertised its own max frame size of 131072 (a limit which it also uses to
> govern its max outgoing frame sizes, thus not reaching the clients advertised
> purely-coincidental 1MB max frame size), the broker is seen to send transfer
> frames including only up to 1024 bytes of message payload at a time.
> It can be seen that the message being sent by the original producer used
> frames with up to 131050 bytes of payload within the transfer frames, in
> keeping with the brokers 131072 max frame size (which includes the frame
> heading and performative itself):
> {noformat}
> [417713843:1] -> Transfer{handle=0, deliveryId=0, deliveryTag=\x00,
> messageFormat=0, settled=false, more=true, rcvSettleMode=null, state=null,
> resume=false, aborted=false, batchable=false} (131050)
> "\x00Sr\xc1)\x04\xa3\x0ex-opt-jms-destQ\x00\xa3\x12x-opt-jms-msg-typeQ\x03\x00Ss\xd0\x00\x00\x00r\x00\x00\x00\x0a\xa1/ID:947e3b66-0d17-4492-8d34-de9050aa1533:1:1:1-1@\xa1\x12testSend1MBMessage@@@\xa3\x18application/octet-stream@@\x83\x00\x00\x01qt\x0b\xe2\x86\x00Su\xb0\x00\x10\x00\x00\x98"\xeb\xfd\x84\xe0\xf8\xb0m9S\x97\xb4\x85iZ_\xa2~\x0e\x00B\x87\x9f\xa46\xe2\xfc\xd0\x9c\xf25[H\x82\x1f3x'\xcf\x0f\xab\x0fq0U^b\x1b\xd2d\x1c\xdcG\xcdLj\xf8!-\xef\xb0nP\x04y\xf7\xb8\xaa\x0d\x09\x83\xba\xd57\xef.\xb1\x1aM\xb9#\xdc\x09\xa5\xa1\xacC\xe1\x18\x14Bln\xcfSu
>
> \xc3\x1b\xd73\xad\xe1A\x81\x17\x13V\xaf\xa9\xa6G\xe1\x82Y{\xcd\x07\xfd\xdb\x11\xf2\xbe\xe6\xbd\xf4\xe9Xr\x18\x00\x12:\x88\xa1\xd0\xe5\xe3\xc1\xe5l\x9c\x8c\x99\xb6&\x01'p\xdb\xb8*\xa3\x87\xb2*on\x8f\x82\xa5j\xfc\xa8\xbd<\x06E\xe9\x888\x1d\x8e1\x17\xc3\x0cH1\x14]\x9f.ZU\xc2\x0eiG\x12T\x16\x99z\xab\xee5=r\xe6\x08\x9cZ\xde\xee\xe9\x93\x86#Y\xef$\xd8\xc9,\x04\xcf\xad\xed\xdeh<\xac\xe4\x82n\xf1k\x16\xcb3\xf0E\xf6
> \xf5\xf0 \x04=g;#\xc1\xaf\xdb\xaa=\x93Bi^\xb0N\xd2\x83\x05`"...(truncated)
> {noformat}
> The same message going back out to the consumer, only uses 1024 bytes of
> payload despite the brokers 131072 max frame size (which it applis to
> outgoing frames too) being the governing limit in the scenario:
> {noformat}
> [1933829960:1] -> Transfer{handle=1, deliveryId=0, deliveryTag=\x00,
> messageFormat=0, settled=false, more=true, rcvSettleMode=null, state=null,
> resume=false, aborted=false, batchable=false} (1024)
> "\x00Sr\xc1)\x04\xa3\x0ex-opt-jms-destQ\x00\xa3\x12x-opt-jms-msg-typeQ\x03\x00Ss\xd0\x00\x00\x00r\x00\x00\x00\x0a\xa1/ID:947e3b66-0d17-4492-8d34-de9050aa1533:1:1:1-1@\xa1\x12testSend1MBMessage@@@\xa3\x18application/octet-stream@@\x83\x00\x00\x01qt\x0b\xe2\x86\x00Su\xb0\x00\x10\x00\x00\x98"\xeb\xfd\x84\xe0\xf8\xb0m9S\x97\xb4\x85iZ_\xa2~\x0e\x00B\x87\x9f\xa46\xe2\xfc\xd0\x9c\xf25[H\x82\x1f3x'\xcf\x0f\xab\x0fq0U^b\x1b\xd2d\x1c\xdcG\xcdLj\xf8!-\xef\xb0nP\x04y\xf7\xb8\xaa\x0d\x09\x83\xba\xd57\xef.\xb1\x1aM\xb9#\xdc\x09\xa5\xa1\xacC\xe1\x18\x14Bln\xcfSu
>
> \xc3\x1b\xd73\xad\xe1A\x81\x17\x13V\xaf\xa9\xa6G\xe1\x82Y{\xcd\x07\xfd\xdb\x11\xf2\xbe\xe6\xbd\xf4\xe9Xr\x18\x00\x12:\x88\xa1\xd0\xe5\xe3\xc1\xe5l\x9c\x8c\x99\xb6&\x01'p\xdb\xb8*\xa3\x87\xb2*on\x8f\x82\xa5j\xfc\xa8\xbd<\x06E\xe9\x888\x1d\x8e1\x17\xc3\x0cH1\x14]\x9f.ZU\xc2\x0eiG\x12T\x16\x99z\xab\xee5=r\xe6\x08\x9cZ\xde\xee\xe9\x93\x86#Y\xef$\xd8\xc9,\x04\xcf\xad\xed\xdeh<\xac\xe4\x82n\xf1k\x16\xcb3\xf0E\xf6
> \xf5\xf0 \x04=g;#\xc1\xaf\xdb\xaa=\x93Bi^\xb0N\xd2\x83\x05`"...(truncated)
> {noformat}
> Whilst this is legal protocol behaviour it is fairly unexpected, and could be
> rather inefficient depending on the size of the message and a receiving
> clients behaviour reconstituting the completed message.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
