Hello guys, Just to wrap up, the last JMS tests performed with synchronous sending were: 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 4 producers, 3 consumers, 4 connectors per broker --> 6 100 msg/s. 2 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 4 producers, 3 consumers, 4 connectors per broker --> 5 800 msg/s. 2 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 8 producers, 3 consumers, 4 connectors per broker --> 7 600 msg/s. 2 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 12 producers, 3 consumers, 4 connectors per broker --> 8 100 msg/s.
In conclusion: * The dispatch router itself is capable of handling high load of data. * The Java Broker is capable of handling high load of data. * Increasing the number of connectors increases the performance until other components become the bottleneck (Doubling the producers increased the throughput in the case of 2 brokers) * Having a pool of connections as a config parameter just like "workerThreads" might be considered as a neater option than defining multiple connectors with their autolinks. * JMS overhead and serialization/de-serialization might be also a bottleneck. Regards, Adel > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:58:13 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with Qpid > Java Broker 6.0.0 > To: [email protected] > > I havent seen the code Ulf is using, but I would guess...edit: ninja'd > by Ulf while I was looking at something else, deleted ;) > > The reactor Ulf is using is a good bit lower level and has a > significantly different threading and application usage model than the > JMS client, so they will differ a good amount from that alone, but we > can likely improve on the JMS clients performance still. > > Another big reason they will also typically differ beyond their basic > architecture though is that they will often send very different > messages on the wire for what may seem on the face of it like similar > messages at the application level, as there is a good amount of > metadata related to supporting behaviours required of a JMS client. > Unless you were to code the reactor based sender to send more similar > content (which obviously in some of the cases might not actually make > sense), then the messages themselves aren't really equivalent. I'd > guess that the messages being used in the reactor sender are body > section only (is the body reused?), whereas the ones the JMS client is > sending will have properties, header and annotations sections on top > with content in each of those. Some of that content is going to be > general purpose stuff a reactor based sender might want to send too > (e.g message-id) whereas other bits are just JMS-client specific > meta-data it likely wouldnt. > > Robbie > > On 4 August 2016 at 09:40, Adel Boutros <[email protected]> wrote: > > Our producers/consumers actually logs the elapsed time. This was slowing > > down the test. I deactivated the logging and with a dispatcher only, I am > > at around 47 000 msg/s with asynchronous sending. > > > >> From: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with > >> Qpid Java Broker 6.0.0 > >> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:39:23 +0200 > >> > >> And how do you measure your throughput? > >> > >> > From: [email protected] > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Subject: RE: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with > >> > Qpid Java Broker 6.0.0 > >> > Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:38:12 +0200 > >> > > >> > Hello Ulf, > >> > > >> > I am sending messages with a byte array of 100 bytes and I am using > >> > Berkley DB as a message store (which should be slower than having memory > >> > only message store, no?) > >> > > >> > With 1 consumer, 1 producer and no broker, I am at 33k msgs/sec if they > >> > are all on the same machine and I have set "jms.forceAsyncSend=true" on > >> > the producer and "jms.sendAcksAsync=true" for the consumer. > >> > > >> > Are you using other options to get 190k? Do you think JMS might be a > >> > bottleneck? Or something else in my config/test? > >> > > >> > JMS client 0.9.0 > >> > Qpid Java Broker 6.0.1 > >> > Dispatcher 0.6.0 > >> > > >> > 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: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:23:06 +0200 > >> > > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > Excuse me if this was already mentioned somewhere, but what is the size > >> > > of the messages you are sending ? > >> > > > >> > > FWIW, I'm able to get around 30-40k msgs/sec sustained with 1 producer, > >> > > 1 consumer, 1 dispatch (4 worker threads) and 1 broker (activemq-5). > >> > > The > >> > > sender sends unsettled messages as fast as it can using qpid-proton > >> > > reactor API which is sending async up to the window limit. > >> > > > >> > > With no broker involved, I'm getting ~190k msgs/sec. > >> > > > >> > > All of these numbers are from my 8 core laptop. Message size is 128 > >> > > bytes. > >> > > > >> > > I don't know the dispatcher that well, but I think it should be able to > >> > > handle data from each connector just fine given the numbers I have > >> > > seen. > >> > > > >> > > On 08/03/2016 02:41 PM, Adel Boutros wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hello again, > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > As requested, I added a 2nd connector and the appropriate autoLinks > >> > > > on the same host/port but with a different name. It seems to have > >> > > > resolved the issue. > >> > > > > >> > > > 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 3 producers, 0 consumers, 1 connectors --> > >> > > > 5000 msg/s. > >> > > > 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 3 producers, 0 consumers, 2 connectors --> > >> > > > 6600 msg/s. > >> > > > 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 4 producers, 0 consumers, 2 connectors --> > >> > > > 7700 msg/s. > >> > > > > >> > > > I think this confirms the problem is due to the fact a single > >> > > > connection is being shared by all clients (consumers/producers) and > >> > > > that having a sort of pool of connections or a connection per > >> > > > workerThread is a solution to consider. > >> > > > > >> > > > What do you think? > >> > > > > >> > > > I added a 3rd connector to see if it changes anything but it > >> > > > didn't. Do you think this is maybe because the dispatcher is not > >> > > > able > >> > > > to process fast enough and saturate the 2 connectors? > >> > > > 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 4 producers, 0 consumers, 3 connectors --> > >> > > > 7700 msg/s. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Adel > >> > > > > >> > > >> From: [email protected] > >> > > >> To: [email protected] > >> > > >> Subject: RE: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 > >> > > >> with Qpid Java Broker 6.0.0 > >> > > >> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:21:54 +0200 > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Sorry for the typo. Indeed, it was with 3 producers. I used 4 and 8 > >> > > >> workerThread but there wasn't a difference. > >> > > >> We want to benchmark in the worst case scenarios actually to see > >> > > >> what is the minimum we can guarantee. This is why we are using > >> > > >> synchronous sending. In the future, we will also benchmark with > >> > > >> full SSL/SASL to see what impact it has on the performance. > >> > > >>> 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 20:41:54 +0100 > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> On 02/08/16 20:25, Adel Boutros wrote: > >> > > >>>> How about the tests we did with consumer/producers connected > >> > > >>>> directly to the dispatcher without any broker where we had 16 000 > >> > > >>>> msg/s with 4 producers. Is it also a very low value given that > >> > > >>>> there is no persistence or storing here? It was also synchronous > >> > > >>>> sending. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> The rate is low because it is synchronous. One messages is sent to > >> > > >>> the > >> > > >>> consumer who acknowledges it, the acknowledgement is then conveyed > >> > > >>> back > >> > > >>> to the sender who then can send the next message. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> The rate for a single producer through the router was 6,000 per > >> > > >>> second. > >> > > >>> That works out as a roundtrip time of 167 microsecs or so. In your > >> > > >>> table, the 16,000 rate was listed as being for 3 producers. Based > >> > > >>> on the > >> > > >>> rate of a single producer, the best you could hope for there is 3 * > >> > > >>> 6,000 i.e 18,000. (How many worker threads did you have on the > >> > > >>> router > >> > > >>> for that case?) > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Ulf > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > 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] >
