[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3522?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17427064#comment-17427064
]
Robbie Gemmell commented on ARTEMIS-3522:
-----------------------------------------
{quote}
The blocking in both cases seems to be sensible, either for netty threads or
for credit. It makes sense to not have unbounded growth of pending requests on
the client, and blocking on tcp buffers or credit (for core) seems reasonable.
I imagine if infinite credit is available to core, then the tcp push back would
block in a similar way to qpid-jms?
{quote}
The reference to netty threads is perhaps misleading. Qpid-JMS does a lot of
its main processing in the same thread it uses for the connections netty event
loop, its that thread which does the ultimate send etc after initial
preparation and passoff from the application thread. Its also blocking
primarily on a different form of credit.
> 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)
