[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-9721?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Christopher L. Shannon resolved AMQ-9721.
-----------------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
> Fix performance issues with non-persistent message removal from topic/durable
> subscriptions
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AMQ-9721
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-9721
> Project: ActiveMQ Classic
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 6.1.6, 5.18.7
> Reporter: Christopher L. Shannon
> Assignee: Christopher L. Shannon
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 6.2.0, 5.19.1, 6.1.7
>
> Time Spent: 0.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> While testing various scenarios with expiration on subscriptions I noticed
> that when there is a large backlog of non-persistent messages the CPU usage
> would spike in some cases for removing messages. This only happened when non
> persistent messages were using the pending disk list and not in memory.
> After investigation, it turns out there are a couple of problems that need to
> be resolved.
> # FilePendingMessageCursor flushes messages to disk when memory is full. The
> disk cursor uses a linked list as an index which has O\(n) performance for
> random access. This is not an issue because the broker is going to append
> messages to the front/end and then page them in from the front for dispatch,
> expire, discard, etc. Except...it turns out in a couple spots the broker is
> actually incorrectly calling remove twice on the cursor for the same message.
> (Happens on discard for topic subs, also during expiration for durable subs).
> Usually when remove is called it finds the message pretty quickly as it was
> recently dispatched or paged in, except since it's called twice it iterates
> over the entire linked list for no reason and finds nothing. This causes a
> huge performance problem if there's a large backup (ie millions)
> # The second problem is specific to durable subscriptions. The durable sub
> cursor contains a list of cursors for its topic stores and also for it's
> non-persistent cursor. The problem is that when the expiration task runs and
> calls the remove method, it is being delegated to all cursors, including non
> persistent. So even though it will never find the message in the cursor if
> there's a huge non-persistent backlog it causes a lot of CPU usage to search.
> This can be fixed by checking the persistent type and only calling the right
> prefetches for remove, similar to how the add method works and how queue
> subscriptions work.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
