Thanks Ted,

I will try to change linkCapacity. However, I was wondering if there is a way 
to "calculate an optimal value for linkCapacity". What factors can impact this 
field?

Regards,
Adel

> Subject: Re: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with Qpid 
> Java Broker 6.0.0
> To: [email protected]
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:44:43 -0400
> 
> Adel,
> 
> The number of workers should be related to the number of available 
> processor cores, not the volume of work or number of connections.  4 is 
> probably a good number for testing.
> 
> I'm not sure what the default link credit is for the Java broker (it's 
> 500 for the c++ broker) or the clients you're using.
> 
> The metric you should adjust is the linkCapacity for the listener and 
> route-container connector.  LinkCapacity is the number of deliveries 
> that can be in-flight (unsettled) on each link.  Qpid Dispatch Router 
> defaults linkCapacity to 250.  Depending on the volumes in your test, 
> this might account for the discrepancy.  You should try increasing this 
> value.
> 
> Note that linkCapacity is used to set initial credit for your links.
> 
> -Ted
> 
> On 07/25/2016 12:10 PM, Adel Boutros wrote:
> > Hello,We are actually running some performance benchmarks in an 
> > architecture consisting of a Java Broker connected to a Qpid dispatch 
> > router. We also have 3 producers and 3 consumers in the test. The producers 
> > send message to a topic which has a binding on a queue with a filter and 
> > the consumers receives message from that queue.
> > We have noticed a significant loss of performance in this architecture 
> > compared to an architecture composed of a simple Java Broker. The 
> > throughput of the producers is down to half and there are a lot of 
> > oscillations in the presence of the dispatcher.
> >
> > I have tried to double the number of workers on the dispatcher but it had 
> > no impact.
> >
> > Can you please help us find the cause of this issue?
> >
> > Dispacth router config
> > router {
> >     id: router.10454
> >     mode: interior
> >     worker-threads: 4
> > }
> >
> > listener {
> >     host: 0.0.0.0
> >     port: 10454
> >     role: normal
> >     saslMechanisms: ANONYMOUS
> >     requireSsl: no
> >     authenticatePeer: no
> > }
> >
> > Java Broker config
> > export QPID_JAVA_MEM="-Xmx16g -Xms2g"
> > 1 Topic + 1 Queue
> > 1 AMQP port without any authentication mechanism (ANONYMOUS)
> >
> > Qdmanage on Dispatcher
> > qdmanage -b amqp://localhost:10454 create --type=address prefix=perfQueue 
> > waypoint=true name=perf.queue.addr
> > qdmanage -b amqp://localhost:10454 create --type=address prefix=perf.topic 
> > waypoint=true name=perf.topic.addr
> > qdmanage -b amqp://localhost:10454 create --type=connector 
> > role=route-container addr=localhost port=10455 
> > name=localhost.broker.10455.connector
> > qdmanage -b amqp://localhost:10454 create --type=autoLink addr=perfQueue 
> > dir=in connection=localhost.broker.10455.connector 
> > name=localhost.broker.10455.perfQueue.in
> > qdmanage -b amqp://localhost:10454 create --type=autoLink addr=perf.topic 
> > dir=out connection=localhost.broker.10455.connector 
> > name=localhost.broker.10455.perf.topic.out
> >
> > Combined producer throughput
> > 1 Broker: http://hpics.li/a9d6efa
> > 1 Broker + 1 Dispatcher: http://hpics.li/189299b
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adel
> >
> >                                     
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
                                          

Reply via email to