Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Yes, I definitely will give a try to Kryo serialization. Right know,
despite of using standard Java serialization, we're not sending class id's
over the wire since we have a morphological serialization on each class.
Nevertheless the Akka itself is doing that so Kryo could provide a good
enhancement on that. I'm pretty sure that we'll get a significant
performance improvement.

Regards.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Guido Medina  wrote:

> Thanks Patrik for clarifying the Artery part I had misunderstood, it is
> getting really close anyway which makes me *-and sure others-* happy.
>
> @Eduardo, the Kryo part will still apply, specially listing the classes as
> I did in my config example,
> I wouldn't worry much about the KryoQueueBuilder part, I would get it to
> work first and worry about that later.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido.
>
> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:56:25 AM UTC+1, Patrik Nordwall wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in Java.
>>> We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since we've
>>> overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
>>> AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.
>>>
>>
>> Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is end-of-life.
>> You find the migration guide here:
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html
>>
>> I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new
>> remoting (Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing
>> development milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of next
>> week according to the plan .
>> It will be merged back to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that
>> will not happen next week.
>>
>> /Patrik
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
>>> serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
>>> configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
>>> automatically registered classed, which is very helpful.
>>>
>>> I'm working on it.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for you patience.
>>>
>>> /Eduardo
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina  wrote:
>>>
 Questions:

- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective it
should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I
understood correctly, your project is in Java-*
- Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?

 Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new
 juice, akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving
 you a much faster remote component.
 The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+ which
 uses 2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default + incremental,
 basically to allow the developer to:

- Register classes explicitly, for the ones registered manual
performance will be better.
- Register classes automatically not listed.

 HTH,

 Guido.

 On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:39:50 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:

> Hi All.
>
> I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy. I'm
> using 2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future.
>
> I'm getting the error below.
>
> Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get
> more cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits
> quite soon.
>
> To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a
> sprint. I have a considerable number of serializable classes.
>
> Thanks again for your time.
>
> -
>
> Serialization trace:
> callbacks
> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.client.ResponseImpl)
> response
> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandRequest)
> commands
> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandBulkRequest)
> at
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:125)
> at
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
> at
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
> at
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObjectOrNull(Kryo.java:737)
> at
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:368)
> at
> 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Guido Medina]

Thanks Patrik for clarifying the Artery part I had misunderstood, it is 
getting really close anyway which makes me *-and sure others-* happy.

@Eduardo, the Kryo part will still apply, specially listing the classes as 
I did in my config example,
I wouldn't worry much about the KryoQueueBuilder part, I would get it to 
work first and worry about that later.

Regards,

Guido.

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:56:25 AM UTC+1, Patrik Nordwall wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes  > wrote:
>
>> Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in Java. 
>> We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since we've 
>> overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex. 
>> AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors. 
>>
>
> Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is end-of-life. 
> You find the migration guide here: 
> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html
>
> I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new 
> remoting (Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing 
> development milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of next 
> week according to the plan . 
> It will be merged back to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that 
> will not happen next week.
>
> /Patrik
>  
>
>>
>> Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many 
>> serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in 
>> configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out 
>> automatically registered classed, which is very helpful. 
>>
>> I'm working on it.
>>
>> Thanks again for you patience. 
>>
>> /Eduardo
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina > > wrote:
>>
>>> Questions:
>>>
>>>- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective it 
>>>should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I 
>>>understood correctly, your project is in Java-*
>>>- Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?
>>>
>>> Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new 
>>> juice, akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving 
>>> you a much faster remote component.
>>> The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+ which 
>>> uses 2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default + incremental, 
>>> basically to allow the developer to:
>>>
>>>- Register classes explicitly, for the ones registered manual 
>>>performance will be better.
>>>- Register classes automatically not listed.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> Guido.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:39:50 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>>>
 Hi All.

 I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy. I'm 
 using 2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future. 

 I'm getting the error below.

 Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get 
 more cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits 
 quite soon. 

 To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a 
 sprint. I have a considerable number of serializable classes.

 Thanks again for your time.

 -

 Serialization trace:
 callbacks 
 (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.client.ResponseImpl)
 response 
 (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandRequest)
 commands 
 (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandBulkRequest)
 at 
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:125)
 at 
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
 at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
 at 
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
 at 
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
 at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObjectOrNull(Kryo.java:737)
 at 
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:368)
 at 
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:289)
 at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
 at 
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
 at 
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
 at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:660)
 at 
 com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoBasedSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:397)
 at 
 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Ok. In our case the ack is per message... anyway I could expect a very good
improvement in number of transactions upgrading to Artery. We don't need
the factor 30x you have. If we have a factor 2 or 3 it would be very
welcome.

Thanks for the info. This numbers could help me to push it into a near
sprint.

Best regards Patrik.


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Patrik Nordwall 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Wow!!! I have to try the new remoting!
>>
>> The measurement is quite basic: I have a pool of threads and I just call
>> the sends() and wait for the response and execute a new send. Nothing
>> particular. I made a simple test with the old remote and my numbers were
>> also around 25.000 msg/s, so we agree on that. On top of the old remote, on
>> my local machine (4 cores) I set the client and the server and I get around
>> 300.000 msg/s (really are 600.000 because we have cli->server and other
>> server->client response). So I could expect a very good enhancement if we
>> move to Artery.
>>
>> The limitation in my machine is CPU, not network, of course, because all
>> operations go through the loopback virtual card, which is a lot faster than
>> the real card. The CPU is high because of serialization.
>>
>> In your test of 700.000 does this include a response from the server (or
>> remote peer or whatever)?
>>
>
> No, that's one-way between two JVMs. Flow control is handled by one ack
> per batch of 1000 messages (several of these batches in flight).
>
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
>> patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Then I question how you measure this in your benchmark. With old
>>> (current) remoting I have observed max throughput of 25.000 msg/s (one way)
>>> using this test:
>>> https://github.com/akka/akka/blob/artery-dev/akka-remote-tests/src/multi-jvm/scala/akka/remote/artery/MaxThroughputSpec.scala
>>>
>>> With new remoting (Artery) that test performs around 700.000 msg/s on my
>>> local machine.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes... 1.000.000 messages over the network (1.000.000 sent and
 1.000.000 of ack's with the operation state, in this case a single echo).
 Sorry, I was not precise on that. We call it transaction becase we make a
 kind of commit in ram but in this case it is not relevant.

 On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
 patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you talking about 1.000.000 (500.000) messages/s over the network
> or what is your definition of transaction?
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Many thanks Patrik. I'll share it with our dev team. I've read it
>> when we have indeed to change our code a bit. If we can distribute the
>> serialization across the processors I'm pretty sure we could achieve 
>> around
>> 1.000.000 transactions/s in an 8 cores machine with 4 or 5 actors on each
>> node. Right now I have around 500.000 with 2 actors but increasing the
>> number of actors is not increasing the numbers as we should expect. The
>> network bandwidth is not the problem and I have around 48% of CPU in idle
>> state.
>>
>> Regards and thanks again for the info.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
>> patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes >> > wrote:
>>>
 Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in
 Java. We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since
 we've overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
 AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.

>>>
>>> Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is
>>> end-of-life. You find the migration guide here:
>>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html
>>>
>>> I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new
>>> remoting (Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing
>>> development milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of 
>>> next
>>> week according to the plan
>>> . It will be merged
>>> back to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that will not happen 
>>> next
>>> week.
>>>
>>> /Patrik
>>>
>>>

 Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
 serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
 configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
 automatically registered classed, which is 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Patrik Nordwall]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Eduardo Fernandes  wrote:

> Wow!!! I have to try the new remoting!
>
> The measurement is quite basic: I have a pool of threads and I just call
> the sends() and wait for the response and execute a new send. Nothing
> particular. I made a simple test with the old remote and my numbers were
> also around 25.000 msg/s, so we agree on that. On top of the old remote, on
> my local machine (4 cores) I set the client and the server and I get around
> 300.000 msg/s (really are 600.000 because we have cli->server and other
> server->client response). So I could expect a very good enhancement if we
> move to Artery.
>
> The limitation in my machine is CPU, not network, of course, because all
> operations go through the loopback virtual card, which is a lot faster than
> the real card. The CPU is high because of serialization.
>
> In your test of 700.000 does this include a response from the server (or
> remote peer or whatever)?
>

No, that's one-way between two JVMs. Flow control is handled by one ack per
batch of 1000 messages (several of these batches in flight).


>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Patrik Nordwall  > wrote:
>
>> Then I question how you measure this in your benchmark. With old
>> (current) remoting I have observed max throughput of 25.000 msg/s (one way)
>> using this test:
>> https://github.com/akka/akka/blob/artery-dev/akka-remote-tests/src/multi-jvm/scala/akka/remote/artery/MaxThroughputSpec.scala
>>
>> With new remoting (Artery) that test performs around 700.000 msg/s on my
>> local machine.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes... 1.000.000 messages over the network (1.000.000 sent and 1.000.000
>>> of ack's with the operation state, in this case a single echo). Sorry, I
>>> was not precise on that. We call it transaction becase we make a kind of
>>> commit in ram but in this case it is not relevant.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
>>> patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Are you talking about 1.000.000 (500.000) messages/s over the network
 or what is your definition of transaction?

 On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
 wrote:

> Many thanks Patrik. I'll share it with our dev team. I've read it when
> we have indeed to change our code a bit. If we can distribute the
> serialization across the processors I'm pretty sure we could achieve 
> around
> 1.000.000 transactions/s in an 8 cores machine with 4 or 5 actors on each
> node. Right now I have around 500.000 with 2 actors but increasing the
> number of actors is not increasing the numbers as we should expect. The
> network bandwidth is not the problem and I have around 48% of CPU in idle
> state.
>
> Regards and thanks again for the info.
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
> patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in
>>> Java. We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since
>>> we've overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
>>> AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.
>>>
>>
>> Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is
>> end-of-life. You find the migration guide here:
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html
>>
>> I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new
>> remoting (Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing
>> development milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of 
>> next
>> week according to the plan
>> . It will be merged
>> back to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that will not happen 
>> next
>> week.
>>
>> /Patrik
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
>>> serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
>>> configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
>>> automatically registered classed, which is very helpful.
>>>
>>> I'm working on it.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for you patience.
>>>
>>> /Eduardo
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Questions:

- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java
perspective it should be transparent and irrelevant to your project 
 *-if
I understood correctly, your project is in Java-*
- Are you using Java 8? If just why not 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Wow!!! I have to try the new remoting!

The measurement is quite basic: I have a pool of threads and I just call
the sends() and wait for the response and execute a new send. Nothing
particular. I made a simple test with the old remote and my numbers were
also around 25.000 msg/s, so we agree on that. On top of the old remote, on
my local machine (4 cores) I set the client and the server and I get around
300.000 msg/s (really are 600.000 because we have cli->server and other
server->client response). So I could expect a very good enhancement if we
move to Artery.

The limitation in my machine is CPU, not network, of course, because all
operations go through the loopback virtual card, which is a lot faster than
the real card. The CPU is high because of serialization.

In your test of 700.000 does this include a response from the server (or
remote peer or whatever)?

Thanks.


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Patrik Nordwall 
wrote:

> Then I question how you measure this in your benchmark. With old (current)
> remoting I have observed max throughput of 25.000 msg/s (one way) using
> this test:
> https://github.com/akka/akka/blob/artery-dev/akka-remote-tests/src/multi-jvm/scala/akka/remote/artery/MaxThroughputSpec.scala
>
> With new remoting (Artery) that test performs around 700.000 msg/s on my
> local machine.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes... 1.000.000 messages over the network (1.000.000 sent and 1.000.000
>> of ack's with the operation state, in this case a single echo). Sorry, I
>> was not precise on that. We call it transaction becase we make a kind of
>> commit in ram but in this case it is not relevant.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
>> patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you talking about 1.000.000 (500.000) messages/s over the network
>>> or what is your definition of transaction?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Many thanks Patrik. I'll share it with our dev team. I've read it when
 we have indeed to change our code a bit. If we can distribute the
 serialization across the processors I'm pretty sure we could achieve around
 1.000.000 transactions/s in an 8 cores machine with 4 or 5 actors on each
 node. Right now I have around 500.000 with 2 actors but increasing the
 number of actors is not increasing the numbers as we should expect. The
 network bandwidth is not the problem and I have around 48% of CPU in idle
 state.

 Regards and thanks again for the info.

 On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
 patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in
>> Java. We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since
>> we've overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
>> AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.
>>
>
> Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is
> end-of-life. You find the migration guide here:
> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html
>
> I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new
> remoting (Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing
> development milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of next
> week according to the plan
> . It will be merged back
> to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that will not happen next 
> week.
>
> /Patrik
>
>
>>
>> Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
>> serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
>> configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
>> automatically registered classed, which is very helpful.
>>
>> I'm working on it.
>>
>> Thanks again for you patience.
>>
>> /Eduardo
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Questions:
>>>
>>>- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective
>>>it should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I
>>>understood correctly, your project is in Java-*
>>>- Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?
>>>
>>> Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new
>>> juice, akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving
>>> you a much faster remote component.
>>> The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+
>>> which uses 2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default +
>>> 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Patrik Nordwall]

Then I question how you measure this in your benchmark. With old (current)
remoting I have observed max throughput of 25.000 msg/s (one way) using
this test:
https://github.com/akka/akka/blob/artery-dev/akka-remote-tests/src/multi-jvm/scala/akka/remote/artery/MaxThroughputSpec.scala

With new remoting (Artery) that test performs around 700.000 msg/s on my
local machine.


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Eduardo Fernandes  wrote:

> Yes... 1.000.000 messages over the network (1.000.000 sent and 1.000.000
> of ack's with the operation state, in this case a single echo). Sorry, I
> was not precise on that. We call it transaction becase we make a kind of
> commit in ram but in this case it is not relevant.
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Patrik Nordwall  > wrote:
>
>> Are you talking about 1.000.000 (500.000) messages/s over the network or
>> what is your definition of transaction?
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Many thanks Patrik. I'll share it with our dev team. I've read it when
>>> we have indeed to change our code a bit. If we can distribute the
>>> serialization across the processors I'm pretty sure we could achieve around
>>> 1.000.000 transactions/s in an 8 cores machine with 4 or 5 actors on each
>>> node. Right now I have around 500.000 with 2 actors but increasing the
>>> number of actors is not increasing the numbers as we should expect. The
>>> network bandwidth is not the problem and I have around 48% of CPU in idle
>>> state.
>>>
>>> Regards and thanks again for the info.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
>>> patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>


 On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
 wrote:

> Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in
> Java. We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since
> we've overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
> AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.
>

 Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is
 end-of-life. You find the migration guide here:
 http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html

 I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new
 remoting (Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing
 development milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of next
 week according to the plan
 . It will be merged back
 to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that will not happen next week.

 /Patrik


>
> Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
> serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
> configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
> automatically registered classed, which is very helpful.
>
> I'm working on it.
>
> Thanks again for you patience.
>
> /Eduardo
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina 
> wrote:
>
>> Questions:
>>
>>- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective
>>it should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I
>>understood correctly, your project is in Java-*
>>- Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?
>>
>> Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new
>> juice, akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving
>> you a much faster remote component.
>> The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+
>> which uses 2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default +
>> incremental, basically to allow the developer to:
>>
>>- Register classes explicitly, for the ones registered manual
>>performance will be better.
>>- Register classes automatically not listed.
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Guido.
>>
>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:39:50 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All.
>>>
>>> I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy.
>>> I'm using 2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future.
>>>
>>> I'm getting the error below.
>>>
>>> Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get
>>> more cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits
>>> quite soon.
>>>
>>> To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a
>>> sprint. I have a considerable number of serializable classes.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for your time.
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Serialization trace:
>>> callbacks
>>> 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Yes... 1.000.000 messages over the network (1.000.000 sent and 1.000.000 of
ack's with the operation state, in this case a single echo). Sorry, I was
not precise on that. We call it transaction becase we make a kind of commit
in ram but in this case it is not relevant.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Patrik Nordwall 
wrote:

> Are you talking about 1.000.000 (500.000) messages/s over the network or
> what is your definition of transaction?
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Many thanks Patrik. I'll share it with our dev team. I've read it when we
>> have indeed to change our code a bit. If we can distribute the
>> serialization across the processors I'm pretty sure we could achieve around
>> 1.000.000 transactions/s in an 8 cores machine with 4 or 5 actors on each
>> node. Right now I have around 500.000 with 2 actors but increasing the
>> number of actors is not increasing the numbers as we should expect. The
>> network bandwidth is not the problem and I have around 48% of CPU in idle
>> state.
>>
>> Regards and thanks again for the info.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Patrik Nordwall <
>> patrik.nordw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in
 Java. We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since
 we've overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
 AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.

>>>
>>> Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is end-of-life.
>>> You find the migration guide here:
>>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html
>>>
>>> I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new
>>> remoting (Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing
>>> development milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of next
>>> week according to the plan .
>>> It will be merged back to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that
>>> will not happen next week.
>>>
>>> /Patrik
>>>
>>>

 Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
 serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
 configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
 automatically registered classed, which is very helpful.

 I'm working on it.

 Thanks again for you patience.

 /Eduardo

 On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina 
 wrote:

> Questions:
>
>- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective
>it should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I
>understood correctly, your project is in Java-*
>- Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?
>
> Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new
> juice, akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving
> you a much faster remote component.
> The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+ which
> uses 2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default + incremental,
> basically to allow the developer to:
>
>- Register classes explicitly, for the ones registered manual
>performance will be better.
>- Register classes automatically not listed.
>
> HTH,
>
> Guido.
>
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:39:50 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>
>> Hi All.
>>
>> I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy. I'm
>> using 2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future.
>>
>> I'm getting the error below.
>>
>> Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get
>> more cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits
>> quite soon.
>>
>> To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a
>> sprint. I have a considerable number of serializable classes.
>>
>> Thanks again for your time.
>>
>> -
>>
>> Serialization trace:
>> callbacks
>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.client.ResponseImpl)
>> response
>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandRequest)
>> commands
>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandBulkRequest)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:125)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
>> at
>> 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Many thanks Patrik. I'll share it with our dev team. I've read it when we
have indeed to change our code a bit. If we can distribute the
serialization across the processors I'm pretty sure we could achieve around
1.000.000 transactions/s in an 8 cores machine with 4 or 5 actors on each
node. Right now I have around 500.000 with 2 actors but increasing the
number of actors is not increasing the numbers as we should expect. The
network bandwidth is not the problem and I have around 48% of CPU in idle
state.

Regards and thanks again for the info.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Patrik Nordwall 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in Java.
>> We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since we've
>> overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
>> AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.
>>
>
> Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is end-of-life.
> You find the migration guide here:
> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html
>
> I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new
> remoting (Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing
> development milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of next
> week according to the plan .
> It will be merged back to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that
> will not happen next week.
>
> /Patrik
>
>
>>
>> Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
>> serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
>> configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
>> automatically registered classed, which is very helpful.
>>
>> I'm working on it.
>>
>> Thanks again for you patience.
>>
>> /Eduardo
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina  wrote:
>>
>>> Questions:
>>>
>>>- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective it
>>>should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I
>>>understood correctly, your project is in Java-*
>>>- Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?
>>>
>>> Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new
>>> juice, akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving
>>> you a much faster remote component.
>>> The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+ which
>>> uses 2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default + incremental,
>>> basically to allow the developer to:
>>>
>>>- Register classes explicitly, for the ones registered manual
>>>performance will be better.
>>>- Register classes automatically not listed.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> Guido.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:39:50 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>>>
 Hi All.

 I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy. I'm
 using 2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future.

 I'm getting the error below.

 Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get
 more cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits
 quite soon.

 To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a
 sprint. I have a considerable number of serializable classes.

 Thanks again for your time.

 -

 Serialization trace:
 callbacks
 (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.client.ResponseImpl)
 response
 (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandRequest)
 commands
 (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandBulkRequest)
 at
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:125)
 at
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
 at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
 at
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
 at
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
 at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObjectOrNull(Kryo.java:737)
 at
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:368)
 at
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:289)
 at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
 at
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
 at
 com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
 at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:660)
 at

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Patrik Nordwall]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Eduardo Fernandes  wrote:

> Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in Java.
> We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since we've
> overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
> AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.
>

Updating to 2.4 is a good idea, since OSS version of 2.3 is end-of-life.
You find the migration guide here:
http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.4.7/project/migration-guide-2.3.x-2.4.x.html

I would like to clarify one thing regarding the release of the new remoting
(Artery). We are still developing it and we are releasing development
milestones that you can try out. M3 to be released end of next week
according to the plan . It
will be merged back to 2.4 and released in a 2.4.x version, but that will
not happen next week.

/Patrik


>
> Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
> serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
> configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
> automatically registered classed, which is very helpful.
>
> I'm working on it.
>
> Thanks again for you patience.
>
> /Eduardo
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina  wrote:
>
>> Questions:
>>
>>- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective it
>>should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I
>>understood correctly, your project is in Java-*
>>- Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?
>>
>> Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new juice,
>> akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving you a
>> much faster remote component.
>> The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+ which
>> uses 2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default + incremental,
>> basically to allow the developer to:
>>
>>- Register classes explicitly, for the ones registered manual
>>performance will be better.
>>- Register classes automatically not listed.
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Guido.
>>
>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:39:50 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All.
>>>
>>> I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy. I'm
>>> using 2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future.
>>>
>>> I'm getting the error below.
>>>
>>> Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get
>>> more cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits
>>> quite soon.
>>>
>>> To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a
>>> sprint. I have a considerable number of serializable classes.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for your time.
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Serialization trace:
>>> callbacks
>>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.client.ResponseImpl)
>>> response
>>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandRequest)
>>> commands
>>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandBulkRequest)
>>> at
>>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:125)
>>> at
>>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
>>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
>>> at
>>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
>>> at
>>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
>>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObjectOrNull(Kryo.java:737)
>>> at
>>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:368)
>>> at
>>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:289)
>>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
>>> at
>>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
>>> at
>>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
>>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:660)
>>> at
>>> com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoBasedSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:397)
>>> at
>>> com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:239)
>>> at
>>> akka.serialization.Serialization$$anonfun$deserialize$1.apply(Serialization.scala:104)
>>> at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:161)
>>> at akka.serialization.Serialization.deserialize(Serialization.scala:98)
>>> at akka.remote.MessageSerializer$.deserialize(MessageSerializer.scala:23)
>>> at
>>> akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.payload$lzycompute$1(Endpoint.scala:58)
>>> at akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.payload$1(Endpoint.scala:58)
>>> at akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.dispatch(Endpoint.scala:76)
>>> at
>>> 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Ok. I'll manage to change from 2.10 to 2.11. Yes, my project is in Java.
We're using Java 8 but the transition to 2.4 is not direct since we've
overriden some behaviors in 2.3 which changed in 2.4 ( for ex.
AllocationStrategy). I've tried to change to 2.4 and I got many errors.

Registering classes implicitly is not possible since we have many
serialization asymmetries so I have to list the classes explicitly in
configuration, as you've said.  I enabled kryo traces to print out
automatically registered classed, which is very helpful.

I'm working on it.

Thanks again for you patience.

/Eduardo

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Guido Medina  wrote:

> Questions:
>
>- Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective it
>should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I understood
>correctly, your project is in Java-*
>- Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?
>
> Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new juice,
> akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving you a
> much faster remote component.
> The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+ which
> uses 2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default + incremental,
> basically to allow the developer to:
>
>- Register classes explicitly, for the ones registered manual
>performance will be better.
>- Register classes automatically not listed.
>
> HTH,
>
> Guido.
>
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:39:50 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>
>> Hi All.
>>
>> I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy. I'm
>> using 2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future.
>>
>> I'm getting the error below.
>>
>> Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get more
>> cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits quite
>> soon.
>>
>> To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a
>> sprint. I have a considerable number of serializable classes.
>>
>> Thanks again for your time.
>>
>> -
>>
>> Serialization trace:
>> callbacks
>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.client.ResponseImpl)
>> response
>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandRequest)
>> commands
>> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandBulkRequest)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:125)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObjectOrNull(Kryo.java:737)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:368)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:289)
>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
>> at
>> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
>> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:660)
>> at
>> com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoBasedSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:397)
>> at
>> com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:239)
>> at
>> akka.serialization.Serialization$$anonfun$deserialize$1.apply(Serialization.scala:104)
>> at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:161)
>> at akka.serialization.Serialization.deserialize(Serialization.scala:98)
>> at akka.remote.MessageSerializer$.deserialize(MessageSerializer.scala:23)
>> at
>> akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.payload$lzycompute$1(Endpoint.scala:58)
>> at akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.payload$1(Endpoint.scala:58)
>> at akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.dispatch(Endpoint.scala:76)
>> at
>> akka.remote.EndpointReader$$anonfun$receive$2.applyOrElse(Endpoint.scala:929)
>> at akka.actor.Actor$class.aroundReceive(Actor.scala:467)
>> at akka.remote.EndpointActor.aroundReceive(Endpoint.scala:405)
>> at akka.actor.ActorCell.receiveMessage(ActorCell.scala:516)
>> at akka.actor.ActorCell.invoke(ActorCell.scala:487)
>> at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.processMailbox(Mailbox.scala:238)
>> at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.run(Mailbox.scala:220)
>> at
>> akka.dispatch.ForkJoinExecutorConfigurator$AkkaForkJoinTask.exec(AbstractDispatcher.scala:397)
>> at scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:260)
>> at
>> scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.runTask(ForkJoinPool.java:1339)
>> at
>> scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1979)
>> at
>> 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Guido Medina]

Questions:

   - Why not just replace 2.10 with 2.11? From the Java perspective it 
   should be transparent and irrelevant to your project *-if I understood 
   correctly, your project is in Java-*
   - Are you using Java 8? If just why not just go Akka 2.4.x?

Next week Akka 2.4.8+ (if sprint goes well I think) will get a new juice, 
akka-artery which will replace the current Netty basically giving you a 
much faster remote component.
The automatic ID strategy is only available for akka-kryo 0.4.1+ which uses 
2.11, automatic was the name we came up for default + incremental, 
basically to allow the developer to:

   - Register classes explicitly, for the ones registered manual 
   performance will be better.
   - Register classes automatically not listed.

HTH,

Guido.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:39:50 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>
> Hi All.
>
> I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy. I'm 
> using 2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future. 
>
> I'm getting the error below.
>
> Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get more 
> cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits quite 
> soon. 
>
> To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a sprint. 
> I have a considerable number of serializable classes.
>
> Thanks again for your time.
>
> -
>
> Serialization trace:
> callbacks 
> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.client.ResponseImpl)
> response 
> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandRequest)
> commands 
> (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandBulkRequest)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:125)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObjectOrNull(Kryo.java:737)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:368)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:289)
> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:660)
> at 
> com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoBasedSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:397)
> at 
> com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:239)
> at 
> akka.serialization.Serialization$$anonfun$deserialize$1.apply(Serialization.scala:104)
> at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:161)
> at akka.serialization.Serialization.deserialize(Serialization.scala:98)
> at akka.remote.MessageSerializer$.deserialize(MessageSerializer.scala:23)
> at 
> akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.payload$lzycompute$1(Endpoint.scala:58)
> at akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.payload$1(Endpoint.scala:58)
> at akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.dispatch(Endpoint.scala:76)
> at 
> akka.remote.EndpointReader$$anonfun$receive$2.applyOrElse(Endpoint.scala:929)
> at akka.actor.Actor$class.aroundReceive(Actor.scala:467)
> at akka.remote.EndpointActor.aroundReceive(Endpoint.scala:405)
> at akka.actor.ActorCell.receiveMessage(ActorCell.scala:516)
> at akka.actor.ActorCell.invoke(ActorCell.scala:487)
> at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.processMailbox(Mailbox.scala:238)
> at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.run(Mailbox.scala:220)
> at 
> akka.dispatch.ForkJoinExecutorConfigurator$AkkaForkJoinTask.exec(AbstractDispatcher.scala:397)
> at scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:260)
> at 
> scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.runTask(ForkJoinPool.java:1339)
> at scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1979)
> at 
> scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:107)
> Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
> at java.util.ArrayList.ensureExplicitCapacity(Unknown Source)
> at java.util.ArrayList.ensureCapacity(Unknown Source)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.CollectionSerializer.read(CollectionSerializer.java:96)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.CollectionSerializer.read(CollectionSerializer.java:22)
> at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
> at 
> com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
> ... 32 more
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Eduardo Fernandes  > wrote:
>
>> Ok. Thanks again. 
>>
>> I'll give it a try. I have to adapt our 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Hi All.

I'm using akka-kryo-serialization_2.10 with incremental strategy. I'm using
2.10 for everything so maybe I should update in a near future.

I'm getting the error below.

Anyway, after tunning kryo to work with my project, I never will get more
cpu's working in my bench so I'm afraid that I'll reach kryo limits quite
soon.

To fully adapt kryo to our project maybe I need to include it in a sprint.
I have a considerable number of serializable classes.

Thanks again for your time.

-

Serialization trace:
callbacks (com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.client.ResponseImpl)
response
(com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandRequest)
commands
(com.appgree.core.objectserver.providers.akka.commands.CommandBulkRequest)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:125)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObjectOrNull(Kryo.java:737)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:368)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.DefaultArraySerializers$ObjectArraySerializer.read(DefaultArraySerializers.java:289)
at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.FieldSerializer.read(FieldSerializer.java:528)
at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:660)
at
com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoBasedSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:397)
at
com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer.fromBinary(KryoSerializer.scala:239)
at
akka.serialization.Serialization$$anonfun$deserialize$1.apply(Serialization.scala:104)
at scala.util.Try$.apply(Try.scala:161)
at akka.serialization.Serialization.deserialize(Serialization.scala:98)
at akka.remote.MessageSerializer$.deserialize(MessageSerializer.scala:23)
at
akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.payload$lzycompute$1(Endpoint.scala:58)
at akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.payload$1(Endpoint.scala:58)
at akka.remote.DefaultMessageDispatcher.dispatch(Endpoint.scala:76)
at
akka.remote.EndpointReader$$anonfun$receive$2.applyOrElse(Endpoint.scala:929)
at akka.actor.Actor$class.aroundReceive(Actor.scala:467)
at akka.remote.EndpointActor.aroundReceive(Endpoint.scala:405)
at akka.actor.ActorCell.receiveMessage(ActorCell.scala:516)
at akka.actor.ActorCell.invoke(ActorCell.scala:487)
at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.processMailbox(Mailbox.scala:238)
at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.run(Mailbox.scala:220)
at
akka.dispatch.ForkJoinExecutorConfigurator$AkkaForkJoinTask.exec(AbstractDispatcher.scala:397)
at scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:260)
at
scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.runTask(ForkJoinPool.java:1339)
at scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1979)
at
scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:107)
Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
at java.util.ArrayList.ensureExplicitCapacity(Unknown Source)
at java.util.ArrayList.ensureCapacity(Unknown Source)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.CollectionSerializer.read(CollectionSerializer.java:96)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.CollectionSerializer.read(CollectionSerializer.java:22)
at com.esotericsoftware.kryo.Kryo.readObject(Kryo.java:682)
at
com.esotericsoftware.kryo.serializers.ObjectField.read(ObjectField.java:106)
... 32 more

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Eduardo Fernandes  wrote:

> Ok. Thanks again.
>
> I'll give it a try. I have to adapt our code a bit.
>
> Thanks for your time on this.
>
> El 3 jul 2016, a las 15:14, Guido Medina  escribió:
>
> *Correction:*
>
>- Kryo offers a pool that you can use if you use Kryo directly, kind
>of the recommended way of using it.
>- Akka Kryo uses a similar model giving you the choice of using your
>own queue implementation for its internal pool of instances, each instance
>is an Akka serializer with its Kryo plus other things.
>
> You can see the relevant Akka Kryo code for the pool in this commit/diff:
> https://github.com/romix/akka-kryo-serialization/commit/045cd27dfd01c2c41ab7c64bf6e25a63b3fd8e42
>
> Guido.
>
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:47:45 PM UTC+1, Guido Medina wrote:
>>
>> Kryo and Akka Kryo don't use any threads, the remote-dispatcher is the
>> one doing the work,
>> and Netty threads sending/receiving the bytes from/to Akka remote
>> dispatcher as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Both Kryo and Akka Kryo have a pool with Kryo instances which also
>> happens to re-use the byte buffer making it very 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Guido Medina]

*Correction:*

   - Kryo offers a pool that you can use if you use Kryo directly, kind of 
   the recommended way of using it.
   - Akka Kryo uses a similar model giving you the choice of using your own 
   queue implementation for its internal pool of instances, each instance is 
   an Akka serializer with its Kryo plus other things.

You can see the relevant Akka Kryo code for the pool in this 
commit/diff: 
https://github.com/romix/akka-kryo-serialization/commit/045cd27dfd01c2c41ab7c64bf6e25a63b3fd8e42

Guido.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:47:45 PM UTC+1, Guido Medina wrote:
>
> Kryo and Akka Kryo don't use any threads, the remote-dispatcher is the one 
> doing the work,
> and Netty threads sending/receiving the bytes from/to Akka remote 
> dispatcher as far as I can tell.
>
> Both Kryo and Akka Kryo have a pool with Kryo instances which also happens 
> to re-use the byte buffer making it very efficient in regards of GC.
>
> Kryo pool by default uses a Java ConcurrentQueue (I contributed some of it 
> to Akka Kryo extension) which you can change.
> Read the section, KryoQueueBuilder:
>
>
> https://github.com/romix/akka-kryo-serialization#kryo-queue-builder-examples
>
> which will also improve even further the GC collection.
>
> HTH,
>
> Guido.
>
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:28:46 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>>
>> Quite clean. Many thanks Guido! I'll try it out. I have to inventory my 
>> classes so it will take a while. I hope I'll have some numbers this night. 
>>
>> Anyway, kryo will scale vertically, I suppose. Will kryo use more threads 
>> than I'm using right now?
>>
>> Thanks again for your help and knowledge. 
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Guido Medina  wrote:
>>
>>> I meant to say *"anything that implements Serializable"*
>>> The classes list is important as Kryo won't write class names on the 
>>> messages but IDs of the classes:
>>>
>>> classes = [
>>>   "com.mypackage.Class1",
>>>   "com.mypackage.Class2"
>>> ]
>>>
>>> Suffice to say every node of the cluster must have the same IDs so 
>>> that's some sort of configuration you agree upon.
>>> I find convenient to have a package in a "common" jar project with all 
>>> the classes that I'm going to share (Serialize-ables)
>>> and a "common.conf" with Akka configuration, as I can build my final 
>>> configuration by putting together Akka configurations,
>>> even using place holders, like this:
>>>
>>> config = parseFile(new File(configPath)).withFallback(parseResources(
>>> "common.conf"))...resolve();
>>>
>>> You can use that fallback call as many times as you wish and it won't to 
>>> resolve place holders until you don't call resolve()
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> Guido.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:57:21 PM UTC+1, Guido Medina wrote:

 I have mimic-ed your configuration and corrected some errors, also 
 added Kryo if you want to give it a chance with the configuration I 
 believe 
 will do best.
 I default the "java" serializer to Kryo, that way, everything that 
 inherits "Serializable" will use Kryo, also, I list every class that I 
 care 
 (performance wise) under Kryo list.

 Hope this give you better result, also, don't underestimate the the 
 default mailbox you have commented out:

 akka {
   extensions = 
 ["com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializationExtension$"]

   actor {
 provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
 serializers.java = 
 "com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer"
 default-mailbox.mailbox-type = 
 "akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"

 default-dispatcher {
   type = Dispatcher
   executor = "fork-join-executor"

   fork-join-executor {
 parallelism-min = 4
 parallelism-factor = 1
 parallelism-max = 8
   }
 }

 kryo {
   kryo-reference-map = false
   idstrategy = "automatic"
   use-manifests = true
   buffer-size = 1024
   type = "nograph"

   classes = [
 "com.mypackage.Class1",
 "com.mypackage.Class2"
   ]
 }
   }

   remote {
 log-remote-lifecycle-events = off

 netty.tcp {

   server-socket-worker-pool {
 pool-size-min = 4
 pool-size-factor = 1
 pool-size-max = 8
   }

   client-socket-worker-pool {
 pool-size-min = 4
 pool-size-factor = 1
 pool-size-max = 8
   }
 }

 default-remote-dispatcher {
   type = Dispatcher
   executor = "fork-join-executor"

   fork-join-executor {
 parallelism-min = 4
 parallelism-factor = 1
 parallelism-max = 8
   }
 }
   }

   cluster {
 metrics.enabled 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Guido Medina]

Kryo and Akka Kryo don't use any threads, the remote-dispatcher is the one 
doing the work,
and Netty threads sending/receiving the bytes from/to Akka remote 
dispatcher as far as I can tell.

Both Kryo and Akka Kryo have a pool with Kryo instances which also happens 
to re-use the byte buffer making it very efficient in regards of GC.

Kryo pool by default uses a Java ConcurrentQueue (I contributed some of it 
to Akka Kryo extension) which you can change.
Read the section, KryoQueueBuilder:

https://github.com/romix/akka-kryo-serialization#kryo-queue-builder-examples

which will also improve even further the GC collection.

HTH,

Guido.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:28:46 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>
> Quite clean. Many thanks Guido! I'll try it out. I have to inventory my 
> classes so it will take a while. I hope I'll have some numbers this night. 
>
> Anyway, kryo will scale vertically, I suppose. Will kryo use more threads 
> than I'm using right now?
>
> Thanks again for your help and knowledge. 
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Guido Medina  > wrote:
>
>> I meant to say *"anything that implements Serializable"*
>> The classes list is important as Kryo won't write class names on the 
>> messages but IDs of the classes:
>>
>> classes = [
>>   "com.mypackage.Class1",
>>   "com.mypackage.Class2"
>> ]
>>
>> Suffice to say every node of the cluster must have the same IDs so that's 
>> some sort of configuration you agree upon.
>> I find convenient to have a package in a "common" jar project with all 
>> the classes that I'm going to share (Serialize-ables)
>> and a "common.conf" with Akka configuration, as I can build my final 
>> configuration by putting together Akka configurations,
>> even using place holders, like this:
>>
>> config = parseFile(new File(configPath)).withFallback(parseResources(
>> "common.conf"))...resolve();
>>
>> You can use that fallback call as many times as you wish and it won't to 
>> resolve place holders until you don't call resolve()
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Guido.
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:57:21 PM UTC+1, Guido Medina wrote:
>>>
>>> I have mimic-ed your configuration and corrected some errors, also added 
>>> Kryo if you want to give it a chance with the configuration I believe will 
>>> do best.
>>> I default the "java" serializer to Kryo, that way, everything that 
>>> inherits "Serializable" will use Kryo, also, I list every class that I care 
>>> (performance wise) under Kryo list.
>>>
>>> Hope this give you better result, also, don't underestimate the the 
>>> default mailbox you have commented out:
>>>
>>> akka {
>>>   extensions = 
>>> ["com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializationExtension$"]
>>>
>>>   actor {
>>> provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
>>> serializers.java = "com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer"
>>> default-mailbox.mailbox-type = 
>>> "akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"
>>>
>>> default-dispatcher {
>>>   type = Dispatcher
>>>   executor = "fork-join-executor"
>>>
>>>   fork-join-executor {
>>> parallelism-min = 4
>>> parallelism-factor = 1
>>> parallelism-max = 8
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> kryo {
>>>   kryo-reference-map = false
>>>   idstrategy = "automatic"
>>>   use-manifests = true
>>>   buffer-size = 1024
>>>   type = "nograph"
>>>
>>>   classes = [
>>> "com.mypackage.Class1",
>>> "com.mypackage.Class2"
>>>   ]
>>> }
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   remote {
>>> log-remote-lifecycle-events = off
>>>
>>> netty.tcp {
>>>
>>>   server-socket-worker-pool {
>>> pool-size-min = 4
>>> pool-size-factor = 1
>>> pool-size-max = 8
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   client-socket-worker-pool {
>>> pool-size-min = 4
>>> pool-size-factor = 1
>>> pool-size-max = 8
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> default-remote-dispatcher {
>>>   type = Dispatcher
>>>   executor = "fork-join-executor"
>>>
>>>   fork-join-executor {
>>> parallelism-min = 4
>>> parallelism-factor = 1
>>> parallelism-max = 8
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   cluster {
>>> metrics.enabled = off
>>> jmx.enabled = off
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:45:57 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:

 I'm using the configuration below, following Guido suggestions. 

 Anyway, everything behaves like Akka/netty add more communication 
 threads only if a add more endpoints. Adding more actores talking from 
 host 
 1 to host 2 is not improving throughput, despite of the available idle 
 cpu's.  Does this make sense?

 Of course if my processing were not only dedicated to echo back some 
 characters the processing cpu would hide the serialization performance. It 
 just for find the maximum throughput (net performance) of a couple of 
 actorsystem's. 

 My 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Quite clean. Many thanks Guido! I'll try it out. I have to inventory my
classes so it will take a while. I hope I'll have some numbers this night.

Anyway, kryo will scale vertically, I suppose. Will kryo use more threads
than I'm using right now?

Thanks again for your help and knowledge.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Guido Medina  wrote:

> I meant to say *"anything that implements Serializable"*
> The classes list is important as Kryo won't write class names on the
> messages but IDs of the classes:
>
> classes = [
>   "com.mypackage.Class1",
>   "com.mypackage.Class2"
> ]
>
> Suffice to say every node of the cluster must have the same IDs so that's
> some sort of configuration you agree upon.
> I find convenient to have a package in a "common" jar project with all the
> classes that I'm going to share (Serialize-ables)
> and a "common.conf" with Akka configuration, as I can build my final
> configuration by putting together Akka configurations,
> even using place holders, like this:
>
> config = parseFile(new File(configPath)).withFallback(parseResources(
> "common.conf"))...resolve();
>
> You can use that fallback call as many times as you wish and it won't to
> resolve place holders until you don't call resolve()
>
> HTH,
>
> Guido.
>
>
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:57:21 PM UTC+1, Guido Medina wrote:
>>
>> I have mimic-ed your configuration and corrected some errors, also added
>> Kryo if you want to give it a chance with the configuration I believe will
>> do best.
>> I default the "java" serializer to Kryo, that way, everything that
>> inherits "Serializable" will use Kryo, also, I list every class that I care
>> (performance wise) under Kryo list.
>>
>> Hope this give you better result, also, don't underestimate the the
>> default mailbox you have commented out:
>>
>> akka {
>>   extensions =
>> ["com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializationExtension$"]
>>
>>   actor {
>> provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
>> serializers.java = "com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer"
>> default-mailbox.mailbox-type =
>> "akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"
>>
>> default-dispatcher {
>>   type = Dispatcher
>>   executor = "fork-join-executor"
>>
>>   fork-join-executor {
>> parallelism-min = 4
>> parallelism-factor = 1
>> parallelism-max = 8
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> kryo {
>>   kryo-reference-map = false
>>   idstrategy = "automatic"
>>   use-manifests = true
>>   buffer-size = 1024
>>   type = "nograph"
>>
>>   classes = [
>> "com.mypackage.Class1",
>> "com.mypackage.Class2"
>>   ]
>> }
>>   }
>>
>>   remote {
>> log-remote-lifecycle-events = off
>>
>> netty.tcp {
>>
>>   server-socket-worker-pool {
>> pool-size-min = 4
>> pool-size-factor = 1
>> pool-size-max = 8
>>   }
>>
>>   client-socket-worker-pool {
>> pool-size-min = 4
>> pool-size-factor = 1
>> pool-size-max = 8
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> default-remote-dispatcher {
>>   type = Dispatcher
>>   executor = "fork-join-executor"
>>
>>   fork-join-executor {
>> parallelism-min = 4
>> parallelism-factor = 1
>> parallelism-max = 8
>>   }
>> }
>>   }
>>
>>   cluster {
>> metrics.enabled = off
>> jmx.enabled = off
>>   }
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:45:57 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm using the configuration below, following Guido suggestions.
>>>
>>> Anyway, everything behaves like Akka/netty add more communication
>>> threads only if a add more endpoints. Adding more actores talking from host
>>> 1 to host 2 is not improving throughput, despite of the available idle
>>> cpu's.  Does this make sense?
>>>
>>> Of course if my processing were not only dedicated to echo back some
>>> characters the processing cpu would hide the serialization performance. It
>>> just for find the maximum throughput (net performance) of a couple of
>>> actorsystem's.
>>>
>>> My topology is (attached file). Each client process has 10.000 internal
>>> sync clients and uses a single thread to dispatch messages. A single client
>>> reaches around 450.000/s and two reaches around 525.000/s. Each client
>>> talks to a particular actor in host 2 which talks to a particular actor in
>>> host 3.
>>>
>>> Again, many thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, many thanks for your help.
>>>
>>>   actor {
>>> provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
>>> default-dispatcher {
>>>   throughput = 1024
>>>  fork-join-executor {
>>> parallelism-min = 6
>>> parallelism-factor = 1
>>> parallelism-max = 8
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> # default-mailbox {
>>> #  mailbox-type = "akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"
>>> #}
>>>
>>>   }
>>>   remote {
>>> log-remote-lifecycle-events 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Guido Medina]

I meant to say *"anything that implements Serializable"*
The classes list is important as Kryo won't write class names on the 
messages but IDs of the classes:

classes = [
  "com.mypackage.Class1",
  "com.mypackage.Class2"
]

Suffice to say every node of the cluster must have the same IDs so that's 
some sort of configuration you agree upon.
I find convenient to have a package in a "common" jar project with all the 
classes that I'm going to share (Serialize-ables)
and a "common.conf" with Akka configuration, as I can build my final 
configuration by putting together Akka configurations,
even using place holders, like this:

config = parseFile(new File(configPath)).withFallback(parseResources(
"common.conf"))...resolve();

You can use that fallback call as many times as you wish and it won't to 
resolve place holders until you don't call resolve()

HTH,

Guido.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:57:21 PM UTC+1, Guido Medina wrote:
>
> I have mimic-ed your configuration and corrected some errors, also added 
> Kryo if you want to give it a chance with the configuration I believe will 
> do best.
> I default the "java" serializer to Kryo, that way, everything that 
> inherits "Serializable" will use Kryo, also, I list every class that I care 
> (performance wise) under Kryo list.
>
> Hope this give you better result, also, don't underestimate the the 
> default mailbox you have commented out:
>
> akka {
>   extensions = 
> ["com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializationExtension$"]
>
>   actor {
> provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
> serializers.java = "com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer"
> default-mailbox.mailbox-type = 
> "akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"
>
> default-dispatcher {
>   type = Dispatcher
>   executor = "fork-join-executor"
>
>   fork-join-executor {
> parallelism-min = 4
> parallelism-factor = 1
> parallelism-max = 8
>   }
> }
>
> kryo {
>   kryo-reference-map = false
>   idstrategy = "automatic"
>   use-manifests = true
>   buffer-size = 1024
>   type = "nograph"
>
>   classes = [
> "com.mypackage.Class1",
> "com.mypackage.Class2"
>   ]
> }
>   }
>
>   remote {
> log-remote-lifecycle-events = off
>
> netty.tcp {
>
>   server-socket-worker-pool {
> pool-size-min = 4
> pool-size-factor = 1
> pool-size-max = 8
>   }
>
>   client-socket-worker-pool {
> pool-size-min = 4
> pool-size-factor = 1
> pool-size-max = 8
>   }
> }
>
> default-remote-dispatcher {
>   type = Dispatcher
>   executor = "fork-join-executor"
>
>   fork-join-executor {
> parallelism-min = 4
> parallelism-factor = 1
> parallelism-max = 8
>   }
> }
>   }
>
>   cluster {
> metrics.enabled = off
> jmx.enabled = off
>   }
> }
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:45:57 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>>
>> I'm using the configuration below, following Guido suggestions. 
>>
>> Anyway, everything behaves like Akka/netty add more communication threads 
>> only if a add more endpoints. Adding more actores talking from host 1 to 
>> host 2 is not improving throughput, despite of the available idle cpu's.  
>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Of course if my processing were not only dedicated to echo back some 
>> characters the processing cpu would hide the serialization performance. It 
>> just for find the maximum throughput (net performance) of a couple of 
>> actorsystem's. 
>>
>> My topology is (attached file). Each client process has 10.000 internal 
>> sync clients and uses a single thread to dispatch messages. A single client 
>> reaches around 450.000/s and two reaches around 525.000/s. Each client 
>> talks to a particular actor in host 2 which talks to a particular actor in 
>> host 3.
>>
>> Again, many thanks for your help.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>>
>> Again, many thanks for your help. 
>>
>>   actor {
>> provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
>> default-dispatcher {
>>   throughput = 1024
>>  fork-join-executor {
>> parallelism-min = 6
>> parallelism-factor = 1
>> parallelism-max = 8
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> # default-mailbox {
>> #  mailbox-type = "akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"
>> #}
>>
>>   }
>>   remote {
>> log-remote-lifecycle-events = off
>> netty.tcp {
>>   tcp-nodelay = on
>>   write-buffer-high-water-mark = 4000b
>>   write-buffer-low-water-mark = 0b
>>   send-buffer-size = 4000b
>>   receive-buffer-size = 4000b
>>
>>  server-socket-worker-pool {
>> pool-size-min = 4
>> pool-size-factor = 1
>> pool-size-max = 8
>>  }
>>
>>  client-socket-worker-pool {
>> pool-size-min = 4
>> pool-size-factor = 1
>> pool-size-max = 8
>>  }
>> }
>>   }
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Roland Kuhn 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Guido Medina]

I have mimic-ed your configuration and corrected some errors, also added 
Kryo if you want to give it a chance with the configuration I believe will 
do best.
I default the "java" serializer to Kryo, that way, everything that inherits 
"Serializable" will use Kryo, also, I list every class that I care 
(performance wise) under Kryo list.

Hope this give you better result, also, don't underestimate the the default 
mailbox you have commented out:

akka {
  extensions = 
["com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializationExtension$"]

  actor {
provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
serializers.java = "com.romix.akka.serialization.kryo.KryoSerializer"
default-mailbox.mailbox-type = 
"akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"

default-dispatcher {
  type = Dispatcher
  executor = "fork-join-executor"

  fork-join-executor {
parallelism-min = 4
parallelism-factor = 1
parallelism-max = 8
  }
}

kryo {
  kryo-reference-map = false
  idstrategy = "automatic"
  use-manifests = true
  buffer-size = 1024
  type = "nograph"

  classes = [
"com.mypackage.Class1",
"com.mypackage.Class2"
  ]
}
  }

  remote {
log-remote-lifecycle-events = off

netty.tcp {

  server-socket-worker-pool {
pool-size-min = 4
pool-size-factor = 1
pool-size-max = 8
  }

  client-socket-worker-pool {
pool-size-min = 4
pool-size-factor = 1
pool-size-max = 8
  }
}

default-remote-dispatcher {
  type = Dispatcher
  executor = "fork-join-executor"

  fork-join-executor {
parallelism-min = 4
parallelism-factor = 1
parallelism-max = 8
  }
}
  }

  cluster {
metrics.enabled = off
jmx.enabled = off
  }
}



On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:45:57 PM UTC+1, Eduardo Fernandes wrote:
>
> I'm using the configuration below, following Guido suggestions. 
>
> Anyway, everything behaves like Akka/netty add more communication threads 
> only if a add more endpoints. Adding more actores talking from host 1 to 
> host 2 is not improving throughput, despite of the available idle cpu's.  
> Does this make sense?
>
> Of course if my processing were not only dedicated to echo back some 
> characters the processing cpu would hide the serialization performance. It 
> just for find the maximum throughput (net performance) of a couple of 
> actorsystem's. 
>
> My topology is (attached file). Each client process has 10.000 internal 
> sync clients and uses a single thread to dispatch messages. A single client 
> reaches around 450.000/s and two reaches around 525.000/s. Each client 
> talks to a particular actor in host 2 which talks to a particular actor in 
> host 3.
>
> Again, many thanks for your help.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> Again, many thanks for your help. 
>
>   actor {
> provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
> default-dispatcher {
>   throughput = 1024
>  fork-join-executor {
> parallelism-min = 6
> parallelism-factor = 1
> parallelism-max = 8
>   }
> }
>
> # default-mailbox {
> #  mailbox-type = "akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"
> #}
>
>   }
>   remote {
> log-remote-lifecycle-events = off
> netty.tcp {
>   tcp-nodelay = on
>   write-buffer-high-water-mark = 4000b
>   write-buffer-low-water-mark = 0b
>   send-buffer-size = 4000b
>   receive-buffer-size = 4000b
>
>  server-socket-worker-pool {
> pool-size-min = 4
> pool-size-factor = 1
> pool-size-max = 8
>  }
>
>  client-socket-worker-pool {
> pool-size-min = 4
> pool-size-factor = 1
> pool-size-max = 8
>  }
> }
>   }
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Roland Kuhn  > wrote:
>
>> Doesn't the classical remoting perform serialization within the single 
>> actor responsible for each connection?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 12:57, Viktor Klang  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Eduardo, are you sure that there aren't any synchronized-blocks or locks 
>> used? (i.e. is this a contention problem rather than a paralellization 
>> problem?)
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Eduardo Fernandes > > wrote:
>>
>>> Ups... sorry for misunderstanding your question. 
>>>
>>> My principal problem is not the overhead itself. My problem is that I 
>>> can't get more threads serializing objects to a node. Example: one client I 
>>> have 30%, lets say. If I add other client talking to other actor instance 
>>> in parallel I would expect around 60% cpu usage in my server (I have 6 
>>> threads minimum and I'm pretty sure that the configuration would enable 
>>> that from workers and netty perspective).  Nevertheless I get around 40% of 
>>> my 8 cores machine working. If I put the actors in different processes I 
>>> get the 60% I was expecting. When I say server I 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

I'm using the configuration below, following Guido suggestions.

Anyway, everything behaves like Akka/netty add more communication threads
only if a add more endpoints. Adding more actores talking from host 1 to
host 2 is not improving throughput, despite of the available idle cpu's.
Does this make sense?

Of course if my processing were not only dedicated to echo back some
characters the processing cpu would hide the serialization performance. It
just for find the maximum throughput (net performance) of a couple of
actorsystem's.

My topology is (attached file). Each client process has 10.000 internal
sync clients and uses a single thread to dispatch messages. A single client
reaches around 450.000/s and two reaches around 525.000/s. Each client
talks to a particular actor in host 2 which talks to a particular actor in
host 3.

Again, many thanks for your help.

Best regards.


[image: Inline image 1]


Again, many thanks for your help.

  actor {
provider = "akka.cluster.ClusterActorRefProvider"
default-dispatcher {
  throughput = 1024
 fork-join-executor {
parallelism-min = 6
parallelism-factor = 1
parallelism-max = 8
  }
}

# default-mailbox {
#  mailbox-type = "akka.dispatch.SingleConsumerOnlyUnboundedMailbox"
#}

  }
  remote {
log-remote-lifecycle-events = off
netty.tcp {
  tcp-nodelay = on
  write-buffer-high-water-mark = 4000b
  write-buffer-low-water-mark = 0b
  send-buffer-size = 4000b
  receive-buffer-size = 4000b

 server-socket-worker-pool {
pool-size-min = 4
pool-size-factor = 1
pool-size-max = 8
 }

 client-socket-worker-pool {
pool-size-min = 4
pool-size-factor = 1
pool-size-max = 8
 }
}
  }


On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Roland Kuhn  wrote:

> Doesn't the classical remoting perform serialization within the single
> actor responsible for each connection?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 03 Jul 2016, at 12:57, Viktor Klang  wrote:
>
> Eduardo, are you sure that there aren't any synchronized-blocks or locks
> used? (i.e. is this a contention problem rather than a paralellization
> problem?)
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Ups... sorry for misunderstanding your question.
>>
>> My principal problem is not the overhead itself. My problem is that I
>> can't get more threads serializing objects to a node. Example: one client I
>> have 30%, lets say. If I add other client talking to other actor instance
>> in parallel I would expect around 60% cpu usage in my server (I have 6
>> threads minimum and I'm pretty sure that the configuration would enable
>> that from workers and netty perspective).  Nevertheless I get around 40% of
>> my 8 cores machine working. If I put the actors in different processes I
>> get the 60% I was expecting. When I say server I mean an actorsystem
>> process (a single java process).
>>
>> Thanks again for your help.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Viktor Klang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Eduardo,
>>>
>>> I meant the overhead of the Java Serialization envelope.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Viktor.

 I'm using basic (binary) serialization of basic Java types (int, String
 (UTF), long, arrays of basic types, etc...).

 The overhead is that depending of internal values there is no send to
 serialize some members and other not. If you merge your functional logic
 with the serialization you can make optimizations that a generic serializar
 can't do. Example. Suppose that if a member A has a null value you don't
 have to serialize other member B. Maybe the member B you don't have to
 serialize could have a null value which is fast to serialize but it is even
 faster you don't have even to serialize the null. This type of overhead is
 only possible if the serializer knows about your functional logic.

 Regards

 On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Viktor Klang 
 wrote:

> Hi Eduardo,
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, what serialization format are you emitting in
> your readObject/writeObject?
> What overhead are you observing compared to using a custom Serializer?
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> If you have writeObject/readObject defined in your class the Java
>> plain serialization will invoke those methods. In my case all my internal
>> members and class references are also serialized using the very same
>> technique. So this is equivalent to technologies like kryo and similars
>> since there is no overhead if you serialize basic members. In other words
>> the pre-compiles classes you get from kryo are already made so there is 
>> no
>> performance enhancement in this case. The big 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Roland Kuhn]

Doesn't the classical remoting perform serialization within the single actor 
responsible for each connection?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 03 Jul 2016, at 12:57, Viktor Klang  wrote:
> 
> Eduardo, are you sure that there aren't any synchronized-blocks or locks 
> used? (i.e. is this a contention problem rather than a paralellization 
> problem?)
> 
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Eduardo Fernandes  wrote:
>> Ups... sorry for misunderstanding your question. 
>> 
>> My principal problem is not the overhead itself. My problem is that I can't 
>> get more threads serializing objects to a node. Example: one client I have 
>> 30%, lets say. If I add other client talking to other actor instance in 
>> parallel I would expect around 60% cpu usage in my server (I have 6 threads 
>> minimum and I'm pretty sure that the configuration would enable that from 
>> workers and netty perspective).  Nevertheless I get around 40% of my 8 cores 
>> machine working. If I put the actors in different processes I get the 60% I 
>> was expecting. When I say server I mean an actorsystem process (a single 
>> java process). 
>> 
>> Thanks again for your help.
>> 
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Viktor Klang  
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi Eduardo,
>>> 
>>> I meant the overhead of the Java Serialization envelope.
>>> 
 On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Eduardo Fernandes  
 wrote:
 Hi Viktor.
 
 I'm using basic (binary) serialization of basic Java types (int, String 
 (UTF), long, arrays of basic types, etc...). 
 
 The overhead is that depending of internal values there is no send to 
 serialize some members and other not. If you merge your functional logic 
 with the serialization you can make optimizations that a generic 
 serializar can't do. Example. Suppose that if a member A has a null value 
 you don't have to serialize other member B. Maybe the member B you don't 
 have to serialize could have a null value which is fast to serialize but 
 it is even faster you don't have even to serialize the null. This type of 
 overhead is only possible if the serializer knows about your functional 
 logic. 
 
 Regards 
 
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Viktor Klang  
> wrote:
> Hi Eduardo,
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstood, what serialization format are you emitting in 
> your readObject/writeObject?
> What overhead are you observing compared to using a custom Serializer?
> 
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Eduardo Fernandes  
>> wrote:
>> Hi.
>> 
>> If you have writeObject/readObject defined in your class the Java plain 
>> serialization will invoke those methods. In my case all my internal 
>> members and class references are also serialized using the very same 
>> technique. So this is equivalent to technologies like kryo and similars 
>> since there is no overhead if you serialize basic members. In other 
>> words the pre-compiles classes you get from kryo are already made so 
>> there is no performance enhancement in this case. The big advantage of 
>> kryo is that you don't have to create the writeObject/readObject by 
>> yourself. In my particular case I've already done that job and my 
>> serialization is optimized in particular cases where I don't have to 
>> serialize all members depending of my semantic. I've made some tests and 
>> doing this way is faster than kryo but you have to burn some calories 
>> implementing a optimized serialization code. 
>> 
>> Bests regards and thanks for your comment.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Viktor Klang  
>>> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I understand why write/readObject special methods would 
>>> necessarily be faster? Most of the waste of Java Serialization is its 
>>> envelopes and using class names etc.
>>> 
 On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Eduardo Fernandes  
 wrote:
 Hi.
 
 I'm using Akka 2.3.13, Java edition.
 
 I'm making some performance tests and in the same machine with 8 cores 
 I see that the serialization process is my bottleneck.  I know that 
 because after an increment of actor cpu usage the throughput is 
 exactly the same. 
 
 My actor system talks to 2 other nodes so I see 2 cores dedicated to 
 serialization. Is is possible to increase the number of threads for 
 serialization?
 
 I'm using standard Java serialization but I have my own serialization 
 implementation in my write/readObject methods so I think that 
 switching to kryo or similar will not enhance too much the throughput. 
 
 Many thanks for your help.
 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Patrik Nordwall]

The default remote dispatcher is configured with max 2 threads. Try Guido's
advice and report back, thanks.
/Patrik
sön 3 juli 2016 kl. 12:57 skrev Viktor Klang :

> Eduardo, are you sure that there aren't any synchronized-blocks or locks
> used? (i.e. is this a contention problem rather than a paralellization
> problem?)
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Ups... sorry for misunderstanding your question.
>>
>> My principal problem is not the overhead itself. My problem is that I
>> can't get more threads serializing objects to a node. Example: one client I
>> have 30%, lets say. If I add other client talking to other actor instance
>> in parallel I would expect around 60% cpu usage in my server (I have 6
>> threads minimum and I'm pretty sure that the configuration would enable
>> that from workers and netty perspective).  Nevertheless I get around 40% of
>> my 8 cores machine working. If I put the actors in different processes I
>> get the 60% I was expecting. When I say server I mean an actorsystem
>> process (a single java process).
>>
>> Thanks again for your help.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Viktor Klang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Eduardo,
>>>
>>> I meant the overhead of the Java Serialization envelope.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Viktor.

 I'm using basic (binary) serialization of basic Java types (int, String
 (UTF), long, arrays of basic types, etc...).

 The overhead is that depending of internal values there is no send to
 serialize some members and other not. If you merge your functional logic
 with the serialization you can make optimizations that a generic serializar
 can't do. Example. Suppose that if a member A has a null value you don't
 have to serialize other member B. Maybe the member B you don't have to
 serialize could have a null value which is fast to serialize but it is even
 faster you don't have even to serialize the null. This type of overhead is
 only possible if the serializer knows about your functional logic.

 Regards

 On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Viktor Klang 
 wrote:

> Hi Eduardo,
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, what serialization format are you emitting in
> your readObject/writeObject?
> What overhead are you observing compared to using a custom Serializer?
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> If you have writeObject/readObject defined in your class the Java
>> plain serialization will invoke those methods. In my case all my internal
>> members and class references are also serialized using the very same
>> technique. So this is equivalent to technologies like kryo and similars
>> since there is no overhead if you serialize basic members. In other words
>> the pre-compiles classes you get from kryo are already made so there is 
>> no
>> performance enhancement in this case. The big advantage of kryo is that 
>> you
>> don't have to create the writeObject/readObject by yourself. In my
>> particular case I've already done that job and my serialization is
>> optimized in particular cases where I don't have to serialize all members
>> depending of my semantic. I've made some tests and doing this way is 
>> faster
>> than kryo but you have to burn some calories implementing a optimized
>> serialization code.
>>
>> Bests regards and thanks for your comment.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Viktor Klang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand why write/readObject special methods would
>>> necessarily be faster? Most of the waste of Java Serialization is its
>>> envelopes and using class names etc.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi.

 I'm using Akka 2.3.13, Java edition.

 I'm making some performance tests and in the same machine with 8
 cores I see that the serialization process is my bottleneck.  I know 
 that
 because after an increment of actor cpu usage the throughput is 
 exactly the
 same.

 My actor system talks to 2 other nodes so I see 2 cores dedicated
 to serialization. Is is possible to increase the number of threads for
 serialization?

 I'm using standard Java serialization but I have my own
 serialization implementation in my write/readObject methods so I think 
 that
 switching to kryo or similar will not enhance too much the throughput.

 Many thanks for your help.

 /Eduardo

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Ups... sorry for misunderstanding your question.

My principal problem is not the overhead itself. My problem is that I can't
get more threads serializing objects to a node. Example: one client I have
30%, lets say. If I add other client talking to other actor instance in
parallel I would expect around 60% cpu usage in my server (I have 6 threads
minimum and I'm pretty sure that the configuration would enable that from
workers and netty perspective).  Nevertheless I get around 40% of my 8
cores machine working. If I put the actors in different processes I get the
60% I was expecting. When I say server I mean an actorsystem process (a
single java process).

Thanks again for your help.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Viktor Klang 
wrote:

> Hi Eduardo,
>
> I meant the overhead of the Java Serialization envelope.
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Viktor.
>>
>> I'm using basic (binary) serialization of basic Java types (int, String
>> (UTF), long, arrays of basic types, etc...).
>>
>> The overhead is that depending of internal values there is no send to
>> serialize some members and other not. If you merge your functional logic
>> with the serialization you can make optimizations that a generic serializar
>> can't do. Example. Suppose that if a member A has a null value you don't
>> have to serialize other member B. Maybe the member B you don't have to
>> serialize could have a null value which is fast to serialize but it is even
>> faster you don't have even to serialize the null. This type of overhead is
>> only possible if the serializer knows about your functional logic.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Viktor Klang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Eduardo,
>>>
>>> Perhaps I misunderstood, what serialization format are you emitting in
>>> your readObject/writeObject?
>>> What overhead are you observing compared to using a custom Serializer?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi.

 If you have writeObject/readObject defined in your class the Java plain
 serialization will invoke those methods. In my case all my internal members
 and class references are also serialized using the very same technique. So
 this is equivalent to technologies like kryo and similars since there is no
 overhead if you serialize basic members. In other words the pre-compiles
 classes you get from kryo are already made so there is no performance
 enhancement in this case. The big advantage of kryo is that you don't have
 to create the writeObject/readObject by yourself. In my particular case
 I've already done that job and my serialization is optimized in particular
 cases where I don't have to serialize all members depending of my semantic.
 I've made some tests and doing this way is faster than kryo but you have to
 burn some calories implementing a optimized serialization code.

 Bests regards and thanks for your comment.


 On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Viktor Klang 
 wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand why write/readObject special methods would
> necessarily be faster? Most of the waste of Java Serialization is its
> envelopes and using class names etc.
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'm using Akka 2.3.13, Java edition.
>>
>> I'm making some performance tests and in the same machine with 8
>> cores I see that the serialization process is my bottleneck.  I know that
>> because after an increment of actor cpu usage the throughput is exactly 
>> the
>> same.
>>
>> My actor system talks to 2 other nodes so I see 2 cores dedicated to
>> serialization. Is is possible to increase the number of threads for
>> serialization?
>>
>> I'm using standard Java serialization but I have my own serialization
>> implementation in my write/readObject methods so I think that switching 
>> to
>> kryo or similar will not enhance too much the throughput.
>>
>> Many thanks for your help.
>>
>> /Eduardo
>>
>> --
>> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>> >> Check the FAQ:
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>> >> Search the archives:
>> https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Akka User List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
>> For more options, visit 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Viktor Klang]

Hi Eduardo,

I meant the overhead of the Java Serialization envelope.

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Eduardo Fernandes  wrote:

> Hi Viktor.
>
> I'm using basic (binary) serialization of basic Java types (int, String
> (UTF), long, arrays of basic types, etc...).
>
> The overhead is that depending of internal values there is no send to
> serialize some members and other not. If you merge your functional logic
> with the serialization you can make optimizations that a generic serializar
> can't do. Example. Suppose that if a member A has a null value you don't
> have to serialize other member B. Maybe the member B you don't have to
> serialize could have a null value which is fast to serialize but it is even
> faster you don't have even to serialize the null. This type of overhead is
> only possible if the serializer knows about your functional logic.
>
> Regards
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Viktor Klang 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Eduardo,
>>
>> Perhaps I misunderstood, what serialization format are you emitting in
>> your readObject/writeObject?
>> What overhead are you observing compared to using a custom Serializer?
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> If you have writeObject/readObject defined in your class the Java plain
>>> serialization will invoke those methods. In my case all my internal members
>>> and class references are also serialized using the very same technique. So
>>> this is equivalent to technologies like kryo and similars since there is no
>>> overhead if you serialize basic members. In other words the pre-compiles
>>> classes you get from kryo are already made so there is no performance
>>> enhancement in this case. The big advantage of kryo is that you don't have
>>> to create the writeObject/readObject by yourself. In my particular case
>>> I've already done that job and my serialization is optimized in particular
>>> cases where I don't have to serialize all members depending of my semantic.
>>> I've made some tests and doing this way is faster than kryo but you have to
>>> burn some calories implementing a optimized serialization code.
>>>
>>> Bests regards and thanks for your comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Viktor Klang 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm not sure I understand why write/readObject special methods would
 necessarily be faster? Most of the waste of Java Serialization is its
 envelopes and using class names etc.

 On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
 wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I'm using Akka 2.3.13, Java edition.
>
> I'm making some performance tests and in the same machine with 8 cores
> I see that the serialization process is my bottleneck.  I know that 
> because
> after an increment of actor cpu usage the throughput is exactly the same.
>
> My actor system talks to 2 other nodes so I see 2 cores dedicated to
> serialization. Is is possible to increase the number of threads for
> serialization?
>
> I'm using standard Java serialization but I have my own serialization
> implementation in my write/readObject methods so I think that switching to
> kryo or similar will not enhance too much the throughput.
>
> Many thanks for your help.
>
> /Eduardo
>
> --
> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
> >> Check the FAQ:
> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
> >> Search the archives:
> https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Akka User List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



 --
 Cheers,
 √

 --
 >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
 >> Check the FAQ:
 http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
 >> Search the archives:
 https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
 ---
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups "Akka User List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/akka-user/EVsIxMEDKeI/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>>
>>> 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Hi Viktor.

I'm using basic (binary) serialization of basic Java types (int, String
(UTF), long, arrays of basic types, etc...).

The overhead is that depending of internal values there is no send to
serialize some members and other not. If you merge your functional logic
with the serialization you can make optimizations that a generic serializar
can't do. Example. Suppose that if a member A has a null value you don't
have to serialize other member B. Maybe the member B you don't have to
serialize could have a null value which is fast to serialize but it is even
faster you don't have even to serialize the null. This type of overhead is
only possible if the serializer knows about your functional logic.

Regards

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Viktor Klang 
wrote:

> Hi Eduardo,
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, what serialization format are you emitting in
> your readObject/writeObject?
> What overhead are you observing compared to using a custom Serializer?
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> If you have writeObject/readObject defined in your class the Java plain
>> serialization will invoke those methods. In my case all my internal members
>> and class references are also serialized using the very same technique. So
>> this is equivalent to technologies like kryo and similars since there is no
>> overhead if you serialize basic members. In other words the pre-compiles
>> classes you get from kryo are already made so there is no performance
>> enhancement in this case. The big advantage of kryo is that you don't have
>> to create the writeObject/readObject by yourself. In my particular case
>> I've already done that job and my serialization is optimized in particular
>> cases where I don't have to serialize all members depending of my semantic.
>> I've made some tests and doing this way is faster than kryo but you have to
>> burn some calories implementing a optimized serialization code.
>>
>> Bests regards and thanks for your comment.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Viktor Klang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand why write/readObject special methods would
>>> necessarily be faster? Most of the waste of Java Serialization is its
>>> envelopes and using class names etc.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi.

 I'm using Akka 2.3.13, Java edition.

 I'm making some performance tests and in the same machine with 8 cores
 I see that the serialization process is my bottleneck.  I know that because
 after an increment of actor cpu usage the throughput is exactly the same.

 My actor system talks to 2 other nodes so I see 2 cores dedicated to
 serialization. Is is possible to increase the number of threads for
 serialization?

 I'm using standard Java serialization but I have my own serialization
 implementation in my write/readObject methods so I think that switching to
 kryo or similar will not enhance too much the throughput.

 Many thanks for your help.

 /Eduardo

 --
 >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
 >> Check the FAQ:
 http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
 >> Search the archives:
 https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
 ---
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Akka User List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> √
>>>
>>> --
>>> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>>> >> Check the FAQ:
>>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>>> >> Search the archives:
>>> https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Akka User List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/akka-user/EVsIxMEDKeI/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>> >> Check the FAQ:
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>> >> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to 

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Viktor Klang]

Hi Eduardo,

Perhaps I misunderstood, what serialization format are you emitting in your
readObject/writeObject?
What overhead are you observing compared to using a custom Serializer?

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Eduardo Fernandes  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> If you have writeObject/readObject defined in your class the Java plain
> serialization will invoke those methods. In my case all my internal members
> and class references are also serialized using the very same technique. So
> this is equivalent to technologies like kryo and similars since there is no
> overhead if you serialize basic members. In other words the pre-compiles
> classes you get from kryo are already made so there is no performance
> enhancement in this case. The big advantage of kryo is that you don't have
> to create the writeObject/readObject by yourself. In my particular case
> I've already done that job and my serialization is optimized in particular
> cases where I don't have to serialize all members depending of my semantic.
> I've made some tests and doing this way is faster than kryo but you have to
> burn some calories implementing a optimized serialization code.
>
> Bests regards and thanks for your comment.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Viktor Klang 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand why write/readObject special methods would
>> necessarily be faster? Most of the waste of Java Serialization is its
>> envelopes and using class names etc.
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I'm using Akka 2.3.13, Java edition.
>>>
>>> I'm making some performance tests and in the same machine with 8 cores I
>>> see that the serialization process is my bottleneck.  I know that because
>>> after an increment of actor cpu usage the throughput is exactly the same.
>>>
>>> My actor system talks to 2 other nodes so I see 2 cores dedicated to
>>> serialization. Is is possible to increase the number of threads for
>>> serialization?
>>>
>>> I'm using standard Java serialization but I have my own serialization
>>> implementation in my write/readObject methods so I think that switching to
>>> kryo or similar will not enhance too much the throughput.
>>>
>>> Many thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> /Eduardo
>>>
>>> --
>>> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>>> >> Check the FAQ:
>>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>>> >> Search the archives:
>>> https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Akka User List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> √
>>
>> --
>> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>> >> Check the FAQ:
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>> >> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Akka User List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/akka-user/EVsIxMEDKeI/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
> >> Check the FAQ:
> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
> >> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Akka User List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Cheers,
√

-- 
>>  Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>>  Check the FAQ: 
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>>  Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akka 
User List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Eduardo Fernandes]

Hi.

If you have writeObject/readObject defined in your class the Java plain
serialization will invoke those methods. In my case all my internal members
and class references are also serialized using the very same technique. So
this is equivalent to technologies like kryo and similars since there is no
overhead if you serialize basic members. In other words the pre-compiles
classes you get from kryo are already made so there is no performance
enhancement in this case. The big advantage of kryo is that you don't have
to create the writeObject/readObject by yourself. In my particular case
I've already done that job and my serialization is optimized in particular
cases where I don't have to serialize all members depending of my semantic.
I've made some tests and doing this way is faster than kryo but you have to
burn some calories implementing a optimized serialization code.

Bests regards and thanks for your comment.


On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Viktor Klang  wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand why write/readObject special methods would
> necessarily be faster? Most of the waste of Java Serialization is its
> envelopes and using class names etc.
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Eduardo Fernandes 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'm using Akka 2.3.13, Java edition.
>>
>> I'm making some performance tests and in the same machine with 8 cores I
>> see that the serialization process is my bottleneck.  I know that because
>> after an increment of actor cpu usage the throughput is exactly the same.
>>
>> My actor system talks to 2 other nodes so I see 2 cores dedicated to
>> serialization. Is is possible to increase the number of threads for
>> serialization?
>>
>> I'm using standard Java serialization but I have my own serialization
>> implementation in my write/readObject methods so I think that switching to
>> kryo or similar will not enhance too much the throughput.
>>
>> Many thanks for your help.
>>
>> /Eduardo
>>
>> --
>> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>> >> Check the FAQ:
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>> >> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Akka User List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> √
>
> --
> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
> >> Check the FAQ:
> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
> >> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Akka User List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/akka-user/EVsIxMEDKeI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
>>  Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>>  Check the FAQ: 
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>>  Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akka 
User List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [akka-user] Is it possible to increase the number of serialization threads?

[Viktor Klang]

I'm not sure I understand why write/readObject special methods would
necessarily be faster? Most of the waste of Java Serialization is its
envelopes and using class names etc.

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Eduardo Fernandes  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I'm using Akka 2.3.13, Java edition.
>
> I'm making some performance tests and in the same machine with 8 cores I
> see that the serialization process is my bottleneck.  I know that because
> after an increment of actor cpu usage the throughput is exactly the same.
>
> My actor system talks to 2 other nodes so I see 2 cores dedicated to
> serialization. Is is possible to increase the number of threads for
> serialization?
>
> I'm using standard Java serialization but I have my own serialization
> implementation in my write/readObject methods so I think that switching to
> kryo or similar will not enhance too much the throughput.
>
> Many thanks for your help.
>
> /Eduardo
>
> --
> >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
> >> Check the FAQ:
> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
> >> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Akka User List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Cheers,
√

-- 
>>  Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/
>>  Check the FAQ: 
>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html
>>  Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akka 
User List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.