[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4873?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Rajith Attapattu resolved QPID-4873.
------------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Committed the patch from Helen with modifications to accommodate the
suggestions made in the comments.
http://svn.apache.org/r1485878
> Optimizations in Java client to reduce queue memory footprint
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-4873
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4873
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java Client, Java Common
> Affects Versions: 0.23
> Reporter: Helen Kwong
> Assignee: Rajith Attapattu
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.23
>
> Attachments: ClientQueueMemoryOptimizations.patch
>
>
> My team is using the Java broker and Java client, version 0.16, and looking
> to lower the client's memory footprint on our servers. We did some heap
> analysis and found that the consumption is coming mostly from
> AMQAnyDestination instances, each having a retained size close to ~3KB, and
> since we have 6000 queues on each of our 2 brokers, this amounts to about
> ~33MB, which is valuable real estate for us. In our analysis we found a few
> possible optimizations in the Qpid code that would reduce the per-queue heap
> consumption and which don't seem high risk, and would like to propose the
> following changes (will attach a patch file).
> (I had originally emailed the users list 2 weeks ago, and Rob Godfrey asked
> me to raise a JIRA with the changes in a patch file --
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/qpid-users/201305.mbox/%3CCACsaS94F0MQeyAKTN3yoU=j-MPc6oFWZgtCtj68GAwOcN=5...@mail.gmail.com%3E)
> The changes I attach here are with the trunk code and I've redone the numbers
> / analysis running with the latest client.
> 1. In Address / AddressParser, cacheing / reusing the options Maps for queues
> created with the same options string. (This optimization gives us the most
> significant savings.)
> All our queues are created with the same options string, which means each
> corresponding AMQDestination has an Address that has an _options Map that is
> the same for all queues, i.e., 12K copies of the same map. As far as we can
> tell, the _options map is effectively immutable, i.e., there is no code path
> by which an Address’s _options map can be modified. (Is this correct?) So a
> possible improvement is that in org.apache.qpid.messaging.util.AddressParser,
> we cache the options map for each options string that we've already
> encountered, and if the options string passed in has already been seen, we
> use the stored options map for that Address. This way, for queues having the
> same options, their Address options will reference the same Map. (For our
> queues, each Address _options Map currently takes up 1416 B.)
> 2. AMQDestination's _link field --
> org.apache.qpid.client.messaging.address.Link
> Optimization A: org.apache.qpid.client.messaging.address.Link$Subscription's
> args field is by default a new HashMap with default capacity 16. In our use
> case it remains empty for all queues. A possible optimization is to set the
> default value as Collections.emptyMap() instead. As far was we can tell,
> Subscription.getArgs() is not used to get the map and then modify it. For us
> this saves 128B per queue.
> Optimization B: Similarly, Link has a _bindings List that is by default a new
> ArrayList with a default capacity of 10. In our use case it remains empty for
> all queues, and as far as we can tell this list is not modified after it is
> set. If we make the default value Collections.emptyList() instead, it will
> save us 80B per queue.
> 3. AMQDestination's _node field --
> org.apache.qpid.client.messaging.address.Node
> Node has a _bindings List that is by default a new ArrayList with the default
> capacity. In our use case _bindings remains empty for all queues, and I don't
> see getBindings() being used to get the list and then modify it. I also don't
> see addBindings() being called anywhere in the client. So a possible
> optimization is to set the default value as Collections.emptyList() instead.
> For us this saves 80B per queue.
> The changes in AddressHelper.getBindings() are for the case when there are
> node or link properties defined, but no bindings.
> Overall: Originally, each queue took up about 2760B for us; with these
> optimizations, that goes down to 1024B, saving 63% per queue for us.
> We'd appreciate feedback on these changes and whether we are making any
> incorrect assumptions. I've also added relevant tests to AMQDestinationTest
> but am not sure if that's the best place. Thanks a lot!
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
