Adel,
That's a good question. I think it's highly dependent on your
requirements and the environment. Here are some random thoughts:
- There's a trade-off between memory use (message buffering) and
throughput. If you have many clients sharing the message bus,
smaller values of linkCapacity will protect the router memory. If
you have relatively few clients wanting to go fast, a larger
linkCapacity is appropriate.
- If the underlying network has high latency (satellite links, long
distances, etc.), larger values of linkCapacity will be needed to
protect against stalling caused by delayed settlement.
- The default of 250 is considered a reasonable compromise. I think a
value around 10 is better for a shared bus, but 500-1000 might be
better for throughput with few clients.
-Ted
On 07/26/2016 10:08 AM, Adel Boutros wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
