We are using Qpid Java Broker 6.0.1 with Berkley DB as message store. Were you
using asynchronous sending when you got 80K? Because I think with asynchronous
sending, we can reach higher speeds.We actually timestamp right before and
after the call to the "send" method. If we use asynchronous sending, the
timestamping will be wrong as it doesn't account the settlement.
I will try tomorrow the multiple connectors and let you know how it goes. Do
you want me to test asynchronous sending as well?
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, 2 Aug 2016 14:44:22 -0400
>
>
>
> On 08/02/2016 02:10 PM, Adel Boutros wrote:
> > Hello Ted, Gordon,
> >
> > When I say the JMS producers are sending synchronously, I mean they don't
> > set any options to the connection URL such as jms.forceAsyncSend. So I
> > guess this means the producer will wait for the settlement before sending
> > message X + 1.
> >
> > When I say it fails, I mean that with 1 producer, I have 2500 msg/s. When I
> > add a second producer, I am at 4800 msg/s (Which is roughly twice the
> > throughput of a single producer). But when I add a 3rd producer, I am at
> > 5100 msg/s while I except it to be around 7500 msg/s. So for me the scaling
> > stops working when adding a 3rd producer and above.
>
> Understood.
>
> >
> > What you both explained to me about the single connection is indeed a
> > plausible candidate because in the tests of "broker only", the throughput
> > of a single connection is around 3 500 msg/s. So on a single connection, I
> > shouldn't go above that figure which is what I am seeing. I imagine that
> > when I add more producers/consumers, the throughput will shrink even more
> > because the same connection is used by all the producers and the consumers.
> >
> > Do you think it might be an a good idea if the connections were per
> > workerThread and not only a single connection?
>
> I think this is an interesting feature to consider, however 5.1K
> messages per second on a connection seems like a really low limit to me.
> As I recall, we were able to get closer to 80K to 100K per connection
> on qpidd. Which broker are you using?
>
> An interesting experiment would be to configure two connectors to the
> same broker (with different names) and configure autoLinks with
> different addresses to the two connectors. This would show if the
> bottleneck is the router-to-broker connection.
>
> >
> > Another solution would be to use a maximum of 3 clients (producer or
> > consumer) per dispatcher and have a network of interconnected dispatchers
> > but I find it very heavy and hard to maintain and support on the
> > client-side. Do you agree?
>
> I don't think this would solve your problem anyway.
>
> >
> > JMS Producer code
> > ConnectionFactory connectionFactory = new
> > JmsConnectionFactory("amqp://machine:port");
> > Connection connection = connectionFactory.createConnection();
> > Session session = connection.createSession(false, Session.AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE);
> > Topic topic = session.createTopic("perf.topic");
> > messageProducer = session.createProducer(topic);
> > messageProducer.send(message);
> >
> > 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, 2 Aug 2016 13:42:24 -0400
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 07/29/2016 08:40 AM, Adel Boutros wrote:
> >>> Hello Ted,
> >>>
> >>> Increasing the link capacity had no impact. So, I have
> >>> done a series of tests to try and isolate the issue.
> >>> We tested 3 different architecture without any consumers:
> >>> Producer --> Broker
> >>> Producer --> Dispatcher
> >>> Producer --> Dispatcher --> Broker
> >>> In every test, we sent 100 000 messages which contained a byte array of
> >>> 100 bytes. The producers are sending in synchronous mode and with
> >>> AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE.
> >>>
> >>> Our benchmark machines have 20 cores and 396 Gb Ram each. We have
> >>> currently put consumers/producers on 1 machine and dispatcher/brokers on
> >>> another machine. They are both connected with a 10 Gbps ethernet
> >>> connection. Nothing else is using the machines.
> >>>
> >>> The results are in
> >>> the table below.
> >>>
> >>> What I could observe:
> >>> The broker alone scales well when I add producers
> >>> The dispatcher alone scales well when I add producersThe dispatcher
> >>> connected to a broker scales well with 2 producersThe dispatcher
> >>> connected to a broker fails when having 3 producers or more
> >>
> >> In what way does it fail?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I
> >>> also did some "qdstat -l" while the test was running and at max had 5
> >>> unsettled deliveries. So I don't think the problem comes with the
> >>> linkCapacity.
> >>
> >> You mentioned that you are running in synchronous mode. Does this mean
> >> that each producer is waiting for settlement on message X before sending
> >> message X+1?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> What else can we look at? How does the dispatcher connect the producers
> >>> to the broker? Does it open a new connection with each new producer? Or
> >>> does it use some sort of a connection pool?
> >>
> >> The router multiplexes the broker traffic over a single connection to
> >> the broker.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Could the issue come from the capacity configuration of the link in the
> >>> connection between the broker and the dispatcher?
> >>
> >> Probably not in your case since the backlogs are much smaller than the
> >> default capacity.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Number of Producers
> >>> Broker
> >>> Dispatcher
> >>> Combined Producer Throughput (msg/s)
> >>> Combined Producer Latency (micros)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1
> >>> YES
> >>>
> >>> NO
> >>>
> >>> 3 500
> >>> 370
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 4
> >>> YES
> >>> NO
> >>>
> >>> 9 200
> >>> 420
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1
> >>> NO
> >>> YES
> >>> 6 000
> >>> 180
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2
> >>> NO
> >>> YES
> >>> 12 000
> >>> 192
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 3
> >>> NO
> >>> YES
> >>> 16 000
> >>> 201
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1
> >>> YES
> >>> YES
> >>> 2 500
> >>> 360
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2
> >>> YES
> >>> YES
> >>> 4 800
> >>> 400
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 3
> >>> YES
> >>> YES
> >>> 5 200
> >>> 540
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> qdstat -l
> >>> bash$ qdstat -b dell445srv:10254 -l
> >>> Router Links
> >>> type dir conn id id peer class addr phs
> >>> cap undel unsettled deliveries admin oper
> >>>
> >>> =======================================================================================================================
> >>> endpoint in 19 46 mobile perfQueue 1
> >>> 250 0 0 0 enabled up
> >>> endpoint out 19 54 mobile perf.topic 0
> >>> 250 0 2 4994922 enabled up
> >>> endpoint in 27 57 mobile perf.topic 0
> >>> 250 0 1 1678835 enabled up
> >>> endpoint in 28 58 mobile perf.topic 0
> >>> 250 0 1 1677653 enabled up
> >>> endpoint in 29 59 mobile perf.topic 0
> >>> 250 0 0 1638434 enabled up
> >>> endpoint in 47 94 mobile $management 0
> >>> 250 0 0 1 enabled up
> >>> endpoint out 47 95 local temp.2u+DSi+26jT3hvZ 250
> >>> 0 0 0 enabled up
> >>>
> >>> 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 10:32:29 -0400
> >>>>
> >>>> 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]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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]
>
