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
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.
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?
Could the issue come from the capacity configuration of the link in the
connection between the broker and the dispatcher?
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: users@qpid.apache.org
> From: tr...@redhat.com
> 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: users@qpid.apache.org
> >> From: tr...@redhat.com
> >> 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: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
>
