Hi
Well spotted. I think a good idea is to log a JIRA ticket about this
so its not forgotten and so the AMQ team can look at it and get it
into the next release.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:39 AM, David Sitsky <david.sit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW I changed the contains method as follows:
>
> @Override
> public boolean contains(MessageReference message) {
> if (message != null) {
> return map.containsKey(message.getMessageId());
> }
> return false;
> }
>
> I got a speedup for my test taking 29 minutes from 41 minutes. Can we get
> this change in to the upcoming 5.13 release?
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:44 AM, David Sitsky <david.sit...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have updated my application from ActiveMQ 5.3 to 5.11.1 and have noticed
>> a performance degregation issue. Running a number of jstacks I can see the
>> broker is often stuck here:
>>
>> "Queue:master-items" Id=122 RUNNABLE
>> at
>> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.cursors.OrderedPendingList.contains(OrderedPendingList.java:144)
>> at
>> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.Queue.doPageInForDispatch(Queue.java:1930)
>> at org.apache.activemq.broker.region.Queue.pageInMessages(Queue.java:2119)
>> at org.apache.activemq.broker.region.Queue.iterate(Queue.java:1596)
>> - locked java.lang.Object@253c3089
>> at
>> org.apache.activemq.thread.DedicatedTaskRunner.runTask(DedicatedTaskRunner.java:112)
>> at
>> org.apache.activemq.thread.DedicatedTaskRunner$1.run(DedicatedTaskRunner.java:42)
>>
>> Number of locked synchronizers = 1
>> - java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$NonfairSync@2eb46567
>>
>> For this specific queue, there are a large number of items in it.. around
>> 100,000. However I noticed the code for contains has:
>>
>> public boolean contains(MessageReference message) {
>> if (message != null) {
>> for (PendingNode value : map.values()) {
>> if (value.getMessage().equals(message)) {
>> return true;
>> }
>> }
>> }
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> This will obviously be very slow. Given the Map is keyed by message ID,
>> can't we do a .contains(message.getMessageId()) instead? I noticed the
>> remove() method does this. I am not familiar with the internals of
>> ActiveMQ, so I don't know the ramifications of this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
