-
1. Re: Failover Performance
clebert.suconic Nov 14, 2012 12:54 AM (in response to grandhivenkatesh8787)what version are you using?
What mode are you using on failover? (replication / shared storage)
what transaction mode are you using on producing?
-
2. Re: Failover Performance
gaohoward Nov 14, 2012 12:59 AM (in response to grandhivenkatesh8787)In your live configuration you seems not set <shared-store> to true.
Using auto ack mode is not efficient because each message will cause a round-trip ack signal between client-server. Transactional is better because messages are acked in batches.
I don't understand why the changing of session creation can solve your subscriber problem, can you explain more?
Also what type of shared storage you are using? is it samba on windows?
Howard
-
3. Re: Failover Performance
grandhivenkatesh8787 Nov 14, 2012 1:00 AM (in response to clebert.suconic)Clebert Suconic wrote:
what version are you using?
What mode are you using on failover? (replication / shared storage)
what transaction mode are you using on producing?
Thank's for your quick reply Clebert..
1.Version-2.2.14
2.Shared store
3.Transaction mode in the sense??
-
4. Re: Failover Performance
clebert.suconic Nov 14, 2012 1:02 AM (in response to grandhivenkatesh8787)How you are sending messages.... how you are committing on each send.
Each send will perform a round trip.
The server will share the hardware resources and many producers should scale up the disk and network capacity.
-
5. Re: Failover Performance
clebert.suconic Nov 14, 2012 1:03 AM (in response to clebert.suconic)Regarding the backup... look at the failover examples..
Since you're using Windows... I'm not sure the shared storage works on Windows. I don't think NTFS will work on the shared storage.
-
6. Re: Failover Performance
grandhivenkatesh8787 Nov 14, 2012 1:15 AM (in response to gaohoward)In your live configuration you seems not set <shared-store> to true.
Using auto ack mode is not efficient because each message will cause a round-trip ack signal between client-server. Transactional is better because messages are acked in batches.
I don't understand why the changing of session creation can solve your subscriber problem, can you explain more?
Also what type of shared storage you are using? is it samba on windows?
Howard
Thank's for your repsonse Yong and yes i have just commented it..anywaz the performance is the same...and i am using windows OS....and regarding the session issue ,the producer must seamless connect to the backup server to send messaged which is not happening...
-
7. Re: Failover Performance
grandhivenkatesh8787 Nov 14, 2012 1:49 AM (in response to clebert.suconic)How you are sending messages.... how you are committing on each send.
Each send will perform a round trip.
The server will share the hardware resources and many producers should scale up the disk and network capacity.
I wanted to use transactiional mode but the subscriber is unable to receive messages from the publisher that is the reason why im using non-transactional mode the subscriber is able to receice mesaages and i'm committing the session once the publisher has send the messages.So let me know the changes in the code to the improve performance.I used this to send in batches as send in the user manual and correct me if am wrong.
Session session = connection.createSession(false,Session.DUPS_OK_ACKNOWLEDGE);
-
8. Re: Failover Performance
gaohoward Nov 14, 2012 1:28 AM (in response to grandhivenkatesh8787)Re: regarding the session issue ,the producer must seamless connect to the backup server to send messaged which is not happening...
Are you saying that after change the session to be non-transactional this issue is solved? It couldn't be so imo.
-
9. Re: Failover Performance
grandhivenkatesh8787 Nov 14, 2012 1:28 AM (in response to clebert.suconic)Regarding the backup... look at the failover examples..
Since you're using Windows... I'm not sure the shared storage works on Windows. I don't think NTFS will work on the shared storage.
Yes the backup is able to annouce successfully and also when I run the example(transaction failover example in Hornetq ) with the configurations I have its giving good results like 14k msgs/sec.The only change I can see is the session.(Session session = connection.createSession(false,Session.DUPS_OK_ACKNOWLEDGE);) from my code.
-
10. Re: Failover Performance
grandhivenkatesh8787 Nov 14, 2012 1:38 AM (in response to gaohoward)Yong Hao Gao wrote:
Re: regarding the session issue ,the producer must seamless connect to the backup server to send messaged which is not happening...
Are you saying that after change the session to be non-transactional this issue is solved? It couldn't be so imo.
when i'm using transactional failover( Session session = connection.createSession(true, 0))...the subscriber who is in listening mode was unable to receive any messages from publisher that is the reason I changed the configuration to non-transactional so please tell me what might be the reason for this.
-
11. Re: Failover Performance
ataylor Nov 14, 2012 2:56 AM (in response to grandhivenkatesh8787).The only difference in my code is the parameters of the session(Session session = connection.createSession(true, 0)) which caused the change.I changed the parameters to (Session session = connection.createSession(false, Session.Acknowledge) )
It seems obvious to me that if you change the client then this will effect performance.
Also changing the PI will have an effect, if you use an external IP (i.e. not localhost like the example) then network traffic will take longer.
Oh, and didnt you already raise this in a previous post?
-
12. Re: Failover Performance
grandhivenkatesh8787 Nov 14, 2012 3:47 AM (in response to ataylor)Andy Taylor wrote:
.The only difference in my code is the parameters of the session(Session session = connection.createSession(true, 0)) which caused the change.I changed the parameters to (Session session = connection.createSession(false, Session.Acknowledge) )
It seems obvious to me that if you change the client then this will effect performance.
Also changing the PI will have an effect, if you use an external IP (i.e. not localhost like the example) then network traffic will take longer.
Oh, and didnt you already raise this in a previous post?
Hi Andy,as you said to raise it as a discussion, so i did..anywaz you mean to say when publisher and subscribers are in two diffferent IP,then it will have an effect in performance.
-
13. Re: Failover Performance
ataylor Nov 14, 2012 3:54 AM (in response to grandhivenkatesh8787)Yes, the example just uses localhost so no traffic actually goes on the network, localhost just uses memory to copy buffers so obviously will be much faster
-
14. Re: Failover Performance
gaohoward Nov 14, 2012 6:07 AM (in response to grandhivenkatesh8787)This seems makes no sense to me. Perhaps you forget to commit after message is received?
venkatesh grandhi wrote:
Yong Hao Gao wrote:
Re: regarding the session issue ,the producer must seamless connect to the backup server to send messaged which is not happening...
Are you saying that after change the session to be non-transactional this issue is solved? It couldn't be so imo.
when i'm using transactional failover( Session session = connection.createSession(true, 0))...the subscriber who is in listening mode was unable to receive any messages from publisher that is the reason I changed the configuration to non-transactional so please tell me what might be the reason for this.