Hi Vijay,
thanks for the suggestion. The broker seems stable from the point of view of memory, unless I send more messages than
the client can receive; in that case messages start to pile up in queues, and memory usage goes up.
Memory usage on the client is negligible in all cases.
Flavio
Il 2013/11/12 18:08 PM, Vijay Devadhar ha scritto:
Hi Flavio,
How healthy does the heap look on the JVM that is running the JMS clients?
We had done a prototype of something like this with java broker, and
throughput drop was mostly attributed to running out of heap space on
broker. This might still happen in C++ broker, however I don't have recent
experience in C++ memory management. Looking at memory on both client and
server is a good option.
We were heading in the direction of 100k queues, but when we saw this
changed our application design to live with smaller number of queues.
Thanks
Vijay
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Flavio Baronti <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi Rob,
thanks for your interest. I'm using the C++ broker on Linux, and the Java
client on windows.
The sender is sending through producers obtained with
MessageProducer topicProducer =
session.createProducer(session.createTopic(topicName
+ "; {node: { type: topic } }"));
while the receiver is receiving with a listener set on consumers obtained
with
MessageConsumer consumer = session.createConsumer(
session.createTopic(topicName));
I don't know what to gather from CPU usage. With few sessions it's higher
on the broker, and lower on the client.
Increasing the number of session it's the other way round, higher on
client and lower on broker.
In both cases we're very far from 100%.
I created a bug report, I'm not too familiar with JIRA so I hope I did it
ok.
I added the two test programs I'm using. If there is anything else I can
help with, please let me know.
Flavio
Il 2013/11/12 10:36 AM, Rob Godfrey ha scritto:
Hi Flavio,
a few questions so we can help investigate your issue:
are you using the Java or the C++ broker?
how are you creating the 100k topics/queues?
when you run your test is it obvious whether the broker or the client is
the bottleneck - e.g. is one of these using significantly more CPU time
than the other?
would it be possible to provide for you to provide your test code so that
we can try to replicate the issue (e.g. by attaching to a JIRA)?
thanks,
Rob
On 8 November 2013 12:18, Flavio Baronti <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello,
I have an use case where I need to create hundreds of thousands of
queues,
each one subscribed to a different topic (therefore I have as many topics
as queues).
I set up a test with a single producer generating data on a randomly
chosen topic, and a receiver retrieving data from the queues (and
throwing
it away).
I'm using the JMS api, and doing the obvious thing makes the throughput
drop dramatically from 10k msg/sec with a single topic/queue (around the
top my network adapter can sustain) to 20 msg/sec with 100k
topics/queues.
I found out that I can recover performance by using more JMS sessions and
connections - e.g. create 4 connections with 100 sessions each, and
randomly distributing the receiving queues on them.
This however is less than ideal, since with the JMS client a thread is
created for each session, and I definitely don't want 400 threads
receiving
data. The work I have to do is CPU-bound, and I don't want to waste time
in
context switching when 2/4 threads can suffice.
Why does the throughput drop so badly with many topics/queues? Why adding
sessions helps? Am I overlooking something, or doing something wrong?
Thanks
Flavio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
