To summarize your setup. Load Balancer 1, configured for messages belonging to NamespaceA, with 5 threads, deployed to MachineA\queue1 1 worker endpoint sending sending ready for work to MachineA\queue1.readyforwork, configured with 20 threads, deployed to MachineA
Load Balancer 2, configured for messages belonging to NamespaceB, with 5 threads, deployed to MachineA\queue2 1 worker endpoint sending ready for work to MachineA\queue2.readyforwork, configured with 20 threads, deployed to MachineA I assumed by staging server that you mean staging environment that is configured similarly above but with different machine specs as you've stated. Is this correct? On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Michael Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: > The load balancers are configured with the readyForWorkEndpoint > attribute on the loadBalancer xml element. > > System is a quad core 2.83Ghz core 2 duo, on the staging server which > is running an older single core 2.8Ghz xeon (Dell 2650) with hyper > threading it sits at about 80% and in production it sits between 40 to > 80% on a quad core 2.8Ghz xeon (Dell R210) where it is allocated 2 > cores > > Forgot to mention that RSB is version 2.2 > > > On Nov 16, 1:17 pm, Corey Kaylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, how many cores are on the load balancer machine? There shouldn't be > > that much demand on the cpu, but having said that it really depends on > the > > circumstances and environment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Corey Kaylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Is each load balancer configured with a ready for work uri? > > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Michael Lyons <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > >> When using the load balancer with RSB I'm seeing the CPU runs at near > > >> 100% when the consumers are all busy which causes the consumers to run > > >> slower and be free less often. > > >> It can be simulated easily by setting up a load balancer with no > > >> consumers listening to it and trying to send out some messages to the > > >> consumer. > > > > >> In my specific situation I have 2 load balancers with 5 threads each > > >> (each load balancer runs a separate queue with different types of > > >> messages), there is a consumer waiting at the other end of each load > > >> balancer with another 20 threads each. If one of the load balancers > gets > > >> congested then all consumers run slow. When I ran the load balancer > without > > >> load it averaged ~200ms to process a message, once the load balancer > was > > >> under load (achieved by queuing over 1000 messages) it resulted in an > > >> average time of ~1750ms, which results in the user waiting 8 times > longer > > >> for their tasks to complete. > > > > >> Is there anyway around this? > > > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > >> "Rhino Tools Dev" group. > > >> To view this discussion on the web visit > > >>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rhino-tools-dev/-/PYwMBzLg7m4J. > > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > . > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> [email protected]. > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Rhino Tools Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en.
