[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3522?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17427060#comment-17427060
]
Robbie Gemmell commented on ARTEMIS-3522:
-----------------------------------------
{quote}
This seems odd because JMS 2's CompletionListener should save any previous send
operation to ever block and the user should take care (despite being tedious
and error-prone) to track the amount of in-flight messages and limit it accordly
{quote}
I dont think it is really odd at all. The main thing with a CompletionListener
is that clients dont need to wait for e.g a broker to have been fully
acknowledged the message before returning from send (i.e the way a send without
CL is supposed to work), it isnt necessarily to make everything 100%
non-blocking (the rest of the API certainly isnt). The API has no
vendor-neutral facilities to allow for the kind of specific handling probably
needed to facilitate that it never block. The API specifically allows for the
behaviours seen since its likely quite common for many providers actually; send
with a CompletionListener is even still allowed to be entirely synchronous per
its API.
> Implement performance tools to evaluate throughput and Response Under Load
> performance of Artemis
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARTEMIS-3522
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3522
> Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Broker, JMS
> Reporter: Francesco Nigro
> Assignee: Francesco Nigro
> Priority: Major
>
> There are many performance benchmarks around eg [SoftwareMill
> MqPerf|https://softwaremill.com/mqperf/] that could be used to test
> performance of Artemis in specific scenario, but none is both simple and easy
> to be composed with ad-hoc env setup scripts to perform a wide range of
> different performance tests against the broker.
> This JIRA aim to provide CLI commands that could be used as building blocks
> to perform:
> * all-out throughput tests
> * responsiveness under load tests (with no [coordinated
> omission|http://highscalability.com/blog/2015/10/5/your-load-generator-is-probably-lying-to-you-take-the-red-pi.html])
> ie fixed throughput (per producer) load
> * scalability tests
> The effort of this JIRA should produce CLI commands similar to [Apache Pulsar
> Perf|https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/en/performance-pulsar-perf/] that could
> be composed to create complete performance benchmark pipelines (eg using
> [qDup|https://github.com/Hyperfoil/qDup] and
> [Horreum|https://github.com/Hyperfoil/Horreum] on a CI/CD) or used as-it-is
> by users to quickly check performance of the broker.
> Requirements:
> * support AMQP and Core protocol
> * cross JVMs with microseconds time measurement granularity
> * support parsable output format
> * suitable to perform scale tests
> The last requirement can be achieved both by using MessageListeners and async
> producers available on [JMS
> 2|https://javaee.github.io/jms-spec/pages/JMS20FinalRelease] although both
> [qpid JMS|https://github.com/apache/qpid-jms] and Artemis Core protocols
> blocks the producer caller thread ie the former on
> [jmsConnection::send|https://github.com/apache/qpid-jms/blob/1622de679c3c6763db54e9ac506ef2412fbc4481/qpid-jms-client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/jms/JmsConnection.java#L773],
> awaiting Netty threads to unblock it on
> [AmqpFixedProducer::doSend|https://github.com/apache/qpid-jms/blob/1622de679c3c6763db54e9ac506ef2412fbc4481/qpid-jms-client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/jms/provider/amqp/AmqpFixedProducer.java#L169],
> while the latter on
> [ClientProducerImpl::sendRegularMessage|https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/e364961c8f035613f3ce4e3bdb3430a17efb0ffd/artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/client/impl/ClientProducerImpl.java#L284-L294].
> This seems odd because [JMS 2's
> CompletionListener|https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/jms/CompletionListener.html]
> should save any previous send operation to ever block and the user should
> take care (despite being tedious and error-prone) to track the amount of
> in-flight messages and limit it accordly (ie [Reactive Messaging's
> Emitter|https://smallrye.io/smallrye-reactive-messaging/smallrye-reactive-messaging/2/emitter/emitter.html#emitter-overflow]
> abstract it with its overflow policies to save blocking the caller thread).
> If JMS 2 both impl cannot be turned into non-blocking then there're just 2
> options:
> # using the blocking variant: it means that scalability tests requires using
> machines with high core numbers
> # using [Reactive
> Messaging|https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-reactive-messaging], but
> losing the ability to use local transactions (and maybe other JMS features)
> With the first option the number of producers threads can easily be much more
> then the available cores, causing the load generator to benchmark OS (or the
> runtime) ability to context switch threads instead of the broker. That's why
> a non-blocking approach should be preferred.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
