I'm using a remote ActiveMQ server and Message driven Beans (4 different beans) to consume the messages.
In theory the message consumption should be fast (and was fast in the past). Currently the jboss consumes a very slow number of messages (4 or so) every 4 seconds. The connection panel in the AMQ Webinterface shows two connections from my jboss consumer.
Does anybody have an idea what happens that makes my consumer so slow?
EDIT: the consumer becomes slow over time and is considerably faster after a restart. strange.
the problem was caused by the database. after a lot of debugging we figured out that there was a DB backup with a very eratic shedule that made our db server so slow the message throughput dropped to nearly zero.
Related
The information I found comparing Apache Kafka and ActiveMQ (and similar message queuing products) is never clear about the integrity properties of each solution (especially, consistency).
With Kafka you can get the guarantee that no message is lost even in the presence of failures. Do you lose that guarantee using the "LazyPersistence" option?
By "no loss" I mean that the messages would be available to clients, even upon failure after restart - ideally, all messages arriving at the client, in the correct order.
Does ActiveMQ (either "classic" or Artemis) guarantee no loss of messages upon failure? Any configuration options that do give that guarantee? If the answer would differ for "classic" vs Artemis, that would be nice to know.
With Kafka, you can get the guarantee that no message is lost, even in the presence of failures; I guess you loose that guarantee using the "LazyPersistence" option, is that correct?
This is a large topic.
guarantee that no message is lost
This depends on a few things. First, you may configure retention - after a specific period where it is fine for you that the messages are lost. You may consider infinite retention but also beware that you have enough storage for that, maybe you need compaction of the topic?
even in the presence of failures; I guess you loose that guarantee using the "LazyPersistence" option, is that correct?
Kafka is a distributed system, it is common for distributed system to rely more on distributed replication than synchronous disk writes. Even if you write synchronous to disk - the disk may die and be lost. To what degree you want to use distributed replication (e.g. 3 or 6 replicas?) and synchronous or asynchronous disk writes depends on your requirements - but it also has a trade off in throughput. E.g. AWS Aurora is a distributed database that use 6 replicas.
There is no reasonable or practical way to have "no loss of messages" with any solution.
Kafka's approach is to replicate the data once it gets to the server. As #Jonas mentioned there is a total throughput trade-off. Kafka's producers are typically asynchronous out-of-the-box, so it is reasonable to expect that a process (container restart) or network outage would result in observable message loss from the producing application-side. Also, the LazyPersistence can lead to reasonably observable message loss due to process or server-side Kafka failure.
ActiveMQ's approach is to sync data to disk using the OS system call fsync() which is supposed to result in a write to disk. When you combine that with a RAID storage you have the most practical guarantee of data not being lost.
However, there is a alternative pattern that has nothing to do with persistence that can achieve a higher degree of guarantee. This is used by some financial trading systems and defense applications.
Often referred to as 'fanout'. ActiveMQ has a fanout transport included in its client. Works like this:
Producer sends message to 3 servers (they should be as isolated and separated from each other as possible).
Consumer(s) receive up to 3 messages.
First message through "wins" and the consumer app drops the other 2 messages.
With this approach, you can skip persistence altogether, since you have 3 independent routes and the odds of all 3 failing are low. (There are strategies to improve producer-side QOS in the event producer's network is offline).
Consumer has the option of processing first-message (fast) or requiring at least 2 messages to process and validate that the request is legit (secure, but higher latency).
We are using mirth connect for message transformation from hl7 to text and storing the transformed messages to azure sql database. Our current performance is 45000 messages per hour .
machine configuration is
8 GB RAM and 2 core CPU. Memory assigned to mirth is -XMS = 6122MB
We don't have any idea about what could be performance parameters for Mirth with above configurations. Anyone have idea about performance benchmarks for Mirth connect?
I'd recommend looking into the Max Processing Threads option in version 3.4 and above. It's configurable in the Source Settings (Source tab). By default it's set to 1, which means only one message can process through the channel's main processing thread at any given time. This is important for certain interfaces where order of messages is paramount, but obviously it limits throughput.
Note that whatever client is sending your channel messages also needs to be reconfigured to send multiple messages in parallel. For example if you have a single-threaded process that is sending your channel messages via TCP/MLLP one after another in sequence, increasing the max processing threads isn't necessarily going to help because the client is still single-threaded. But, for example, if you stand up 10 clients all sending to your channel simultaneously, then you'll definitely reap the benefits of increasing the max processing threads.
If your source connector is a polling type, like a File Reader, you can still benefit from this by turning the Source Queue on and increasing the Max Processing Threads. When the source queue is enabled and you have multiple processing threads, multiple queue consumers are started and all read and process from the source queue at the same time.
Another thing to look at is destination queuing. In the Advanced (wrench icon) queue settings, there is a similar option to increase the number of Destination Queue Threads. By default when you have destination queuing enabled, there's just a single queue thread that processes messages in a FIFO sequence. Again, good for message order but hampers throughput.
If you do need messages to be ordered and want to maximize parallel throughput (AKA have your cake and eat it too), you can use the Thread Assignment Variable in conjunction with multiple destination Queue Threads. This allows you to preserve order among messages with the same unique identifier, while messages pertaining to different identifiers can process simultaneously. A common use-case is to use the patient MRN for this, so that all messages for a given patient are guaranteed to process in the order they were received, but messages longitudinally across different patients can process simultaneously.
We are using an AWS EC2 4c.4xlarge instance to test a bare bone Proof of Concept performance limit. We got about 50 msgs/sec without obvious bottlenecks on cpu/memory/network/disk io/db io and etc. Want to push the limits higher. Please share your observations if any.
We run the same process. Mirth -> Azure SQL Database. We're running through performance testing right now and have been stuck at 12 - 15 messages/second (43000 - 54000 per hour).
We've run tests on each channel and found this:
1 channel source: file reader -> destination: Azure SQL DB was about 36k per hour
2 channel source: file reader -> destination: Azure SQL DB was about 59k per hour
3 channel source: file reader -> destination: Azure SQL DB was about 80k per hour
We've added multi-threading (2,4,8) to both the source and destination on 1 channel with no performance increase. Mirth is running on 8GB mem and 2 Cores with heap size set to 2048MB.
We are now going to run through a few tests with mirth running on similar "hardware" as a C4.4xlarge which in Azure is 16 cores and 32GB mem. There is 200gb of SSD available as well.
Our goal is 100k messages per hour per channel.
Below is the configuration:
2 JBoss application nodes
5 listeners on the application node with 50 threads each, supports
clustering and is set up as active-active listener, so they run on
both app nodes
The listener simply gets the message and logs the information into
database
50000 messages are posted into ActiveMQ using JMeter.
Here is the observation on first execution:
Total 50000 messages are consumed in approx 22 mins.
first 0-10000 messages consumed in 1 min approx
10000-20000 messages consumed in 2 mins approx
20000-30000 messages consumed in 4 mins approx
30000-40000 messages consumed in 6 mins approx
40000-50000 messages consumed in 8 mins
So we see the message consumption time is increasing with increasing number of messages.
Second execution without restarting any of the servers:
50000 messages consumed in 53 mins approx!
But after deleting data folder of activemq and restarting activemq,
performance again improves but degrades as more data enters the queue!
I tried multiple configuration in activemq.xml, but no success...
Anybody faced similar issue, and got any solution ? Let me know. Thanks.
I've seen similar slowdowns in our production systems when pending message counts go high. If you're flooding the queues then the MQ process can't keep all the pending messages in memory, and has to go to disk to serve a message. Performance can fall off a cliff in these circumstances. Increase the memory given to the MQ server process.
Also looks as though the disk storage layout is not particularly efficient - perhaps having each message as a file in a single directory? This can make access time rise as traversing disk directory takes longer.
50000 messages in > 20 mins seems very low performance.
Following configuration works well for me (these are just pointers. You may already have tried some of these but see if it works for you)
1) Server and queue/topic policy entry
// server
server.setDedicatedTaskRunner(false)
// queue policy entry
policyEntry.setMemoryLimit(queueMemoryLimit); // 32mb
policyEntry.setOptimizedDispatch(true);
policyEntry.setLazyDispatch(true);
policyEntry.setReduceMemoryFootprint(true);
policyEntry.setProducerFlowControl(true);
policyEntry.setPendingQueuePolicy(new StorePendingQueueMessageStoragePolicy());
2) If you are using KahaDB for persistence then use per destination adapter (MultiKahaDBPersistenceAdapter). This keeps the storage folders separate for each destination and reduces synchronization efforts. Also if you do not worry about abrupt server restarts (due to any technical reason) then you can reduce then disk sync efforts by
kahaDBPersistenceAdapter.setEnableJournalDiskSyncs(false);
3) Try increasing the memory usage, temp and storage disk usage values at server level.
4) If possible increase prefetchSize in prefetch policy. This will improve performance but also increases the memory footprint of consumers.
5) If possible use transactions in consumers. This will help to reduce the message acknowledgement handling and disk sync efforts by server.
Point 5 mentioned by #hemant1900 solved the problem :) Thanks.
5) If possible use transactions in consumers. This will help to reduce
the message acknowledgement handling and disk sync efforts by server.
The problem was in my code. I had not used transaction to persist the data in consumer, which is anyway bad programming..I know :(
But didn't expect that could have caused this issue.
Now 50000, messages are getting processed in less than 2 mins.
Scenario: I have a low-volume topic (~150msgs/sec) for which we would like to have a
low propagation delay from producer to consumer.
I added a time stamp from a producer and read it at consumer to record the propagation delay, with default configurations the msg (of 20 bytes) showed a propagation delay of 1960ms to 1230ms. No network delay is involved since, I tried on a 1 producer and 1 simple consumer on the same machine.
When I have tried adjusting the topic flush interval to 20ms, it drops
to 1100ms to 980ms. Then I tried adjusting the consumers "fetcher.backoff.ms" to 10ms, it dropped to 1070ms - 860ms.
Issue: For a 20 bytes of a msg, I would like to have a propagation delay as low as possible and ~950ms is a higher figure.
Question: Anything I am missing out in configuration?
I do welcome comments, delay which you got as minimum.
Assumption: The Kafka system involves the disk I/O before the consumer get the msg from the producer and this goes with the hard disk RPM and so on..
Update:
Tried to tune the Log Flush Policy for Durability & Latency.Following is the configuration:
# The number of messages to accept before forcing a flush of data to disk
log.flush.interval=10
# The maximum amount of time a message can sit in a log before we force a flush
log.default.flush.interval.ms=100
# The interval (in ms) at which logs are checked to see if they need to be
# flushed to disk.
log.default.flush.scheduler.interval.ms=100
For the same msg of 20 bytes, the delay was 740ms -880ms.
The following statements are made clear in the configuration itself.
There are a few important trade-offs:
Durability: Unflushed data is at greater risk of loss in the event of a crash.
Latency: Data is not made available to consumers until it is flushed (which adds latency).
Throughput: The flush is generally the most expensive operation.
So, I believe there is no way to come down to a mark of 150ms - 250ms. (without hardware upgrade) .
I am not trying to dodge the question but I think that kafka is a poor choice for this use case. While I think Kafka is great (I have been a huge proponent of its use at my workplace), its strength is not low-latency. Its strengths are high producer throughput and support for both fast and slow consumers. While it does provide durability and fault tolerance, so do more general purpose systems like rabbitMQ. RabbitMQ also supports a variety of different clients including node.js. Where rabbitMQ falls short when compared to Kafka is when you are dealing with extremely high volumes (say 150K msg/s). At that point, Rabbit's approach to durability starts to fall apart and Kafka really stands out. The durability and fault tolerance capabilities of rabbit are more than capable at 20K msg/s (in my experience).
Also, to achieve such high throughput, Kafka deals with messages in batches. While the batches are small and their size is configurable, you can't make them too small without incurring a lot of overhead. Unfortunately, message batching makes low-latency very difficult. While you can tune various settings in Kafka, I wouldn't use Kafka for anything where latency needed to be consistently less than 1-2 seconds.
Also, Kafka 0.7.2 is not a good choice if you are launching a new application. All of the focus is on 0.8 now so you will be on your own if you run into problems and I definitely wouldn't expect any new features. For future stable releases, follow the link here stable Kafka release
Again, I think Kafka is great for some very specific, though popular, use cases. At my workplace we use both Rabbit and Kafka. While that may seem gratuitous, they really are complimentary.
I know it's been over a year since this question was asked, but I've just built up a Kafka cluster for dev purposes, and we're seeing <1ms latency from producer to consumer. My cluster consists of three VM nodes running on a cloud VM service (Skytap) with SAN storage, so it's far from ideal hardware. I'm using Kafka 0.9.0.0, which is new enough that I'm confident the asker was using something older. I have no experience with older versions, so you might get this performance increase simply from an upgrade.
I'm measuring latency by running a Java producer and consumer I wrote. Both run on the same machine, on a fourth VM in the same Skytap environment (to minimize network latency). The producer records the current time (System.nanoTime()), uses that value as the payload in an Avro message, and sends (acks=1). The consumer is configured to poll continuously with a 1ms timeout. When it receives a batch of messages, it records the current time (System.nanoTime() again), then subtracts the receive time from the send time to compute latency. When it has 100 messages, it computes the average of all 100 latencies and prints to stdout. Note that it's important to run the producer and consumer on the same machine so that there is no clock sync issue with the latency computation.
I've played quite a bit with the volume of messages generated by the producer. There is definitely a point where there are too many and latency starts to increase, but it's substantially higher than 150/sec. The occasional message takes as much as 20ms to deliver, but the vast majority are between 0.5ms and 1.5ms.
All of this was accomplished with Kafka 0.9's default configurations. I didn't have to do any tweaking. I used batch-size=1 for my initial tests, but I found later that it had no effect at low volume and imposed a significant limit on the peak volume before latencies started to increase.
It's important to note that when I run my producer and consumer on my local machine, the exact same setup reports message latencies in the 100ms range -- the exact same latencies reported if I simply ping my Kafka brokers.
I'll edit this message later with sample code from my producer and consumer along with other details, but I wanted to post something before I forget.
EDIT, four years later:
I just got an upvote on this, which led me to come back and re-read. Unfortunately (but actually fortunately), I no longer work for that company, and no longer have access to the code I promised I'd share. Kafka has also matured several versions since 0.9.
Another thing I've learned in the ensuing time is that Kafka latencies increase when there is not much traffic. This is due to the way the clients use batching and threading to aggregate messages. It's very fast when you have a continuous stream of messages, but any time there is a moment of "silence", the next message will have to pay the cost to get the stream moving again.
It's been some years since I was deep in Kafka tuning. Looking at the latest version (2.5 -- producer configuration docs here), I can see that they've decreased linger.ms (the amount of time a producer will wait before sending a message, in hopes of batching up more than just the one) to zero by default, meaning that the aforementioned cost to get moving again should not be a thing. As I recall, in 0.9 it did not default to zero, and there was some tradeoff to setting it to such a low value. I'd presume that the producer code has been modified to eliminate or at least minimize that tradeoff.
Modern versions of Kafka seem to have pretty minimal latency as the results from here show:
2 ms (median)
3 ms (99th percentile)
14 ms (99.9th percentile)
Kafka can achieve around millisecond latency, by using synchronous messaging. With synchronous messaging, the producer does not collect messages into a patch before sending.
bin/kafka-console-producer.sh --broker-list my_broker_host:9092 --topic test --sync
The following has the same effect:
--batch-size 1
If you are using librdkafka as Kafka client library, you must also set socket.nagle.disable=True
See https://aivarsk.com/2021/11/01/low-latency-kafka-producers/ for some ideas on how to see what is taking those milliseconds.
I have two windows services which use NserviceBus. One writes messages to the queue and the other reads from it and do some processing. All the queues are transactional and the NserviceBus endpoints are configured as below.
.IsTransactional(true)
.IsolationLevel(IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted)
.MsmqTransport()
.RunTimeoutManager()
.UseInMemoryTimeoutPersister()
.MsmqSubscriptionStorage()
.DisableRavenInstall()
.JsonSerializer()
The issue is when a large amount of messages (170,000+) are queued, MSMQ service (mqsvc.exe) chews up quite a bit of memory (1.5 - 2.0 GB) and that memory doesn't get released for at least 5 - 6 hours. The average message size is around 5 - 10 KB. And it seems like the more messages you queue the more memory it uses. The NServiceBus based Windows Services memory consumption are in perfectly acceptable limits (50 - 100 MB) and do not increase no matter how many messages they process.
Any ideas on why MSMQ would use this much memory and takes quite long to release it?
Thanks heaps.
This is perfectly normal. MSMQ uses storage in 4MB blocks of memory which map to the files in the Storage folder. 170,000 messages at 5-10kb each is 0.85-1.7GB so no surprise you're seeing so much virtual memory being allocated. To reduce the overhead of deleting and creating files as messages are removed or arrive, the storage files are kept for 6 hours. After this period, the empty files are deleted. You can configure this, as discussed in my blog post:
Forcing MSMQ to clean up its storage files
On the off-chance it will help anyone - this post on google groups by msmq legend John Breakwell documents how to actually clean down all the messages in storage completely, which is sometimes desirable/necessary
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.msmq.performance/jByfXUwXFw8/i1hVP1WJpJgJ
I had 8GB of files but no messages in any queues, and the msmq service would take around 2 hours just to enter the started state. Purging any queue would take 10s of minutes and cause massive memory spikes, which did not then get released for days, if ever.
If you're ever in this situation, rather than re-install message queuing you can just follow these steps:
Stop Message Queuing service
Go to the MSMQ storage location (usually C:\Windows\System32\msmq\storage)
Delete ONLY the P*.MQ, J*.MQ, R*.MQ, and L*.MQ files