[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-5745?focusedWorklogId=991990&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-991990
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on ARTEMIS-5745:
-------------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 17/Nov/25 10:47
Start Date: 17/Nov/25 10:47
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: GChuf commented on PR #6027:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/6027#issuecomment-3541120171
This was a bit harder to test that I thought (had some issues with
reproducing results and puppeteer memory usage, and so on).
For now I have 3 comparisons. I used the same broker instance for testing
this, with this bootstrap.xml config:
```
<binding name="artemis" uri="http://0.0.0.0:8162";>
<app name="console" url="console" war="console.war"/>
</binding>
<binding name="artemis2" uri="unix:///tmp/jetty.sock">
<app name="console" url="console" war="console.war"/>
</binding>
```
I proxied both addresses via nginx with minimal config.
The broker config stayed the same.
I tested the "status" console page manually (with chrome dev tools) and the
/console/artemis login screen with puppetteer.js:
```
import puppeteer from "puppeteer";
async function testAverageLoadTime(url, runs = 500) {
const browser = await puppeteer.launch({
headless: true,
args: ['--no-sandbox', '--disable-setuid-sandbox', '--disable-cache']
});
const page = await browser.newPage(); // Reuse one page
let totalTime = 0;
for (let i = 1; i < runs; i++) {
const start = Date.now();
await page.goto(url, { waitUntil: "load" });
const loadTime = Date.now() - start;
console.log(`Run ${i + 1}: ${loadTime} ms`);
totalTime += loadTime;
}
```
await page.close();
await browser.close();
console.log(`UNIX: Average load time over ${runs} runs: ${totalTime /
runs} ms`);
}
The calls via puppeteer to /console/artemis made 10 requests on average.
Manual testing the status page had 76 requests.
I didn't test with broker under heavy loads yet, but I did try to saturate
the loopback interface with iperf3 to see if heavy network traffic would make a
difference.
I made 500 runs with puppeteer and 10 manual refreshes on status page.
If you have better ways of testing please let me know.
Otherwise - this comparison really lacks a test where the broker itself is
under heavy load (consumers, producers, messages).
Results:
| mode | TCP | Unix socket |
| ------
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 991990)
Time Spent: 1.5h (was: 1h 20m)
> Add support for exposing Jetty on Unix domain socket
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARTEMIS-5745
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-5745
> Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.44.0
> Reporter: Gašper Čefarin
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Time Spent: 1.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I'd like to add support for exposing Jetty on Unix domain sockets.
> The code in the PR is open to adjustments since this is just a "proof of
> concept" so to say, and a lot of things are not as elegant as I'd like them
> to be. I want to hear your opinions first.
> There's 1 major change, and that's the removal of virtual hosts, and removal
> of connector names.
> From what I understand, virtual host names should match connector names for
> jetty "routing" to work - but this only works for http and https connectors,
> not for unix sockets.
> I had the issue of unix socket being created but the /console URL returning
> 404 - and the issue was resolved when I changed this code:
> {code:java}
> webapp.setVirtualHosts(new String[]{virtualHost}){code}
> to this:
> {code:java}
> webapp.setVirtualHosts(null);{code}
> I've had some help from AI, otherwise I couldn't find the source of the 404
> "error":
> _"Using null for virtual hosts makes the context respond to all connectors,
> including Unix domain sockets."_
> Since all connector names were added to virtualHost array, and all virtual
> hosts were added to all contexts, the functionality should be the same after
> this change ... Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> You can test this PR by adding this into {{bootstrap.xml}}:
> {code:xml}
> <binding name="artemis" uri="unix:///tmp/jetty.sock">
> <app name="console" url="console" war="console.war"/>
> </binding>{code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
