Hi Rob, Thanks so much for your response. We use transacted sessions with non-persistent delivery. Prefetch size is 1 and every message is same size (200 bytes).
Thanks Ramayan On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ramyan, > > this is interesting... in our testing (which admittedly didn't cover the > case of this many queues / listeners) we saw the 6.0.x broker using less > CPU on average than the 0.32 broker. I'll have a look this weekend as to > why creating the listeners is slower. On the dequeing, can you give a > little more information on the usage pattern - are you using transactions, > auto-ack or client ack? What prefetch size are you using? How large are > your messages? > > Thanks, > Rob > > On 14 October 2016 at 23:46, Ramayan Tiwari <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > We have been validating the new Qpid broker (version 6.0.4) and have > > compared against broker version 0.32 and are seeing major regressions. > > Following is the summary of our test setup and results: > > > > *1. Test Setup * > > *a). *Qpid broker runs on a dedicated host (12 cores, 32 GB RAM). > > *b).* For 0.32, we allocated 16 GB heap. For 6.0.6 broker, we use 8GB > > heap and 8GB direct memory. > > *c).* For 6.0.4, flow to disk has been configured at 60%. > > *d).* Both the brokers use BDB host type. > > *e).* Brokers have around 6000 queues and we create 16 listener > > sessions/threads spread over 3 connections, where each session is > listening > > to 3000 queues. However, messages are only enqueued and processed from 10 > > queues. > > *f).* We enqueue 1 million messages across 10 different queues (evenly > > divided), at the start of the test. Dequeue only starts once all the > > messages have been enqueued. We run the test for 2 hours and process as > > many messages as we can. Each message runs for around 200 milliseconds. > > *g).* We have used both 0.16 and 6.0.4 clients for these tests (6.0.4 > > client only with 6.0.4 broker) > > > > *2. Test Results * > > *a).* System Load Average (read notes below on how we compute it), for > > 6.0.4 broker is 5x compared to 0.32 broker. During start of the test > (when > > we are not doing any dequeue), load average is normal (0.05 for 0.32 > broker > > and 0.1 for new broker), however, while we are dequeuing messages, the > load > > average is very high (around 0.5 consistently). > > > > *b). *Time to create listeners in new broker has gone up by 220% > compared > > to 0.32 broker (when using 0.16 client). For old broker, creating 16 > > sessions each listening to 3000 queues takes 142 seconds and in new > broker > > it took 456 seconds. If we use 6.0.4 client, it took even longer at 524% > > increase (887 seconds). > > *I).* The time to create consumers increases as we create more > > listeners on the same connections. We have 20 sessions (but end up using > > around 5 of them) on each connection and we create about 3000 consumers > and > > attach MessageListener to it. Each successive session takes longer > > (approximately linear increase) to setup same number of consumers and > > listeners. > > > > *3). How we compute System Load Average * > > We query the Mbean SysetmLoadAverage and divide it by the value of MBean > > AvailableProcessors. Both of these MBeans are available under > > java.lang.OperatingSystem. > > > > I am not sure what is causing these regressions and would like your help > in > > understanding it. We are aware about the changes with respect to > threading > > model in the new broker, are there any design docs that we can refer to > > understand these changes at a high level? Can we tune some parameters to > > address these issues? > > > > Thanks > > Ramayan > > >
