On 22/05/15 07:11, Leung Wang Hei wrote:
As in my 2nd last comment, iperf3 bandwidth testing shows a max bandwidth of
20Mbit/sec. This matches the expectation with the configured Traffic
Control.
Just want to check - is this the maximum bandwidth over a single TCP
session, or are you using mu
OK, and what are you seeing happen with the TCP congestion window of the
broker-to-broker connection? Is it opening fully?
On May 22, 2015 12:29 AM, "Leung Wang Hei" wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Here are the OS config:
> *Broker A*
> $ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_rmem
> 409687380 16777216
> $ cat /
Hi Tim,
Here are the OS config:
*Broker A*
$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_rmem
409687380 16777216
$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem
409687380 16777216
*Broker B*
$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_rmem
409687380 16777216
$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem
409687380 16777216
As in
You're right, I didn't catch that in your original message, sorry.
What did you find when you investigated my suggestions about the TCP
congestion window and your OS's max socket buffer size setting?
Also, have you confirmed that a non-ActiveMQ TCP socket connection can get
better throughput? Do
Tim,
I have used "transport.socketBufferSize=x" in transport connector broker A
and only "?socketBufferSize=x" in broker B network connector. When x=-1,
warning is raised in MQ log:
/[WARN ] org.apache.activemq.network.DiscoveryNetworkConnector - Could not
start network bridge between:
vm://acti
Peter, I'm pretty sure that's why he's trying to adjust the socket buffer
size, and he's saying that the changes he's making aren't having the
desired effect.
Leung, I have a vague memory having to prefix the URI option with some
prefix (I'm pretty sure it was "transport.", as shown in the example
Hello
On 19/05/15 11:49, Leung Wang Hei wrote:
There seems to be an invisible barrier in the socket buffer for MQ network
bridge. We expect increasing tcp socket buffer size would give high
throughput but the outcome is not. Here are the test details:
- 2 brokers(A, B) bridged together over W
What is the traffic across the WAN for an app other than ActiveMQ? Or what
is the speed of the connection when done NOT over the WAN?
WANs prioritize traffic, wonder if you're hitting a bottleneck in the WAN?
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:49 AM, Leung Wang Hei
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There seems to be
