A further note.
I just looked at all 100 receivers this way.
They all have the same inflection point at 28000 messages.
But ... it could also have been a particular point in time that triggered
it -- because the all hit the 28000 message mark within 2.5 seconds of each
other.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:14 AM Michael Goulish <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Sorry -- I didn't realize this list would remove the image of my graph.
>
> Can everyone see this?
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4t1xbp46y57mfgn/messages_vs_time.jpg?dl=0>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 7:51 AM Chuck Rolke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The mail list scrubs attachments. Maybe create a jira and add the image
>> to that.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Michael Goulish" <[email protected]>
>> > To: [email protected]
>> > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 2:43:40 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Dispatch Router: Changing buffer size in buffer.c blows up
>> AMQP.
>> >
>> > *Can you explain how you are measuring AMQP throughput?  What message
>> sizes
>> > are you using?  Credit windows?  How many senders and receivers?  Max
>> frame*
>> > * size?*
>> >
>> > Oops! Good point. Describe the Test!
>> >
>> > 100 senders, 100 receivers, 100 unique addresses -- each sender sends to
>> > one receiver.
>> > Each sender is throttled to 100 messages per second (Apparently I Really
>> > Like the number 100).
>> > And message size is .... wait for it ...   100.    (payload size .. so
>> > really 139 or something like that.)
>> >
>> > Credit window is 1000.
>> >
>> > I can't find anything in my router config nor in my C client code about
>> max
>> > frame size.   What do I get by default? Or, how can I check that?
>> >
>> > The way I measured throughput was that -- first -- I noticed that when I
>> > made the test go longer, i.e. send 20 million total messages instead of
>> the
>> > original 1 million -- it was taking much longer than I expected. So I
>> had
>> > each receiver log a message every time its total received messages was
>> > divisible by 1000.
>> >
>> > What I saw was that the first thousand came after 11 seconds (just
>> about as
>> > expected because of sender-throttle to 100/sec) but that later thousands
>> > became slower. By the time I stopped the test -- after more than 50,000
>> > messages per receiver -- each thousand was taking ... well ... look at
>> this
>> > very interesting graph that I made of one receiver's behavior.
>> >
>> > This graph is made by just noting the time when you receive each
>> thousandth
>> > message (time since test started) and graphing that -- so we expect to
>> see
>> > an upward-sloping straight line whose slope is determined by how long it
>> > takes to receive each 1000 messages (should be close to 10 seconds).
>> >
>> > [image: messages_vs_time.jpg]
>> >
>> > I'm glad I graphed this! This inflection point was a total shock to me.
>> > NOTE TO SELF: always graph everything from now on forever.
>> >
>> > I guess Something Interesting happened at about 28 seconds!
>> >
>> > Maybe what I need ... is a reading from "qdstat -m" just before and
>> after
>> > that inflection point !?!??
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 5:37 PM Ted Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 2:08 PM Michael Goulish <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > OK, so in the file Dispatch Router file src/buffer.c I changed this:
>> > > >       size_t BUFFER_SIZE     = 512;
>> > > > to this:
>> > > >       size_t BUFFER_SIZE     = 4096;
>> > > >
>> > > > Gordon tells me that's like 8 times bigger.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > It makes a terrific difference in throughput in the TCP adapter,
>> and if
>> > > you
>> > > > limit the sender to the throughput that the receiver can accept, it
>> can
>> > > go
>> > > > Real Fast with no memory bloat.  ( Like 15 Gbit/sec )
>> > > >
>> > > > But.
>> > > > AMQP throughput is Not Happy with this change.
>> > > >
>> > > > Some of the managed fields grow rapidly (although not enough to
>> account
>> > > for
>> > > > total memory growth) -- and throughput gradually drops to a crawl.
>> > > >
>> > > > Here are the fields that increase dramatically (like 10x or more)
>> -- and
>> > > > the ones that don't much change.
>> > > >
>> > > >   qd_bitmask_t
>> > > >   *qd_buffer_t   *
>> > > >   qd_composed_field_t
>> > > >   qd_composite_t
>> > > >   qd_connection_t
>> > > >   qd_hash_handle_t
>> > > >   qd_hash_item_t
>> > > >   qd_iterator_t
>> > > >   *qd_link_ref_t*
>> > > >   qd_link_t
>> > > >   qd_listener_t
>> > > >   qd_log_entry_t
>> > > >   qd_management_context_t
>> > > >   *qd_message_content_t*
>> > > >   *qd_message_t*
>> > > >   qd_node_t
>> > > >   qd_parse_node_t
>> > > >   qd_parse_tree_t
>> > > >   qd_parsed_field_t
>> > > >   qd_session_t
>> > > >   qd_timer_t
>> > > >   *qdr_action_t*
>> > > >   qdr_address_config_t
>> > > >   qdr_address_t
>> > > >   qdr_connection_info_t
>> > > >   qdr_connection_t
>> > > >   qdr_connection_work_t
>> > > >   qdr_core_timer_t
>> > > >   qdr_delivery_cleanup_t
>> > > >   *qdr_delivery_ref_t*
>> > > >   *qdr_delivery_t*
>> > > >   qdr_field_t
>> > > >   qdr_general_work_t
>> > > >   qdr_link_ref_t
>> > > >   qdr_link_t
>> > > >   qdr_link_work_t
>> > > >   qdr_query_t
>> > > >   qdr_terminus_t
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Does anyone have a great idea about any experiment I could do,
>> > > > instrumentation I could add, whatever -- that might help to further
>> > > > diagnose what is going on?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Can you explain how you are measuring AMQP throughput?  What message
>> sizes
>> > > are you using?  Credit windows?  How many senders and receivers?  Max
>> frame
>> > > size?
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>

Reply via email to