[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2706?focusedWorklogId=422549&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-422549
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on ARTEMIS-2706:
-------------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 15/Apr/20 07:31
Start Date: 15/Apr/20 07:31
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: michaelandrepearce commented on issue #3079:
ARTEMIS-2706 Use FrameSize to decide when to flush large messages
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3079#issuecomment-613867488
50 seems to be a bit of a magic number... it be good to understand the
calculation of why 50. I feel uneasy that this is just a number picked out the
air. I assume we know the tags and length and thus be more scientific. If
anything and it does have to be a estimated 64 sounded better because at least
its a power of 2...
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 422549)
Time Spent: 3.5h (was: 3h 20m)
> 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
> Time Spent: 3.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> 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)
