[jira] [Commented] (NIFI-4834) ConsumeJMS does not scale when given more than 1 thread

["ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4834?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16347460#comment-16347460 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-4834:
--------------------------------------

GitHub user markap14 opened a pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2445

    NIFI-4834: Updated AbstractJMSProcessor to use a separate SingleConne…

    …ctionFactory per concurrent task instead of sharing one across the entire processor
    
    Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache NiFi.
    
    In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
    to ensure the following steps have been taken:
    
    ### For all changes:
    - [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced 
         in the commit message?
    
    - [ ] Does your PR title start with NIFI-XXXX where XXXX is the JIRA number you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character.
    
    - [ ] Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target branch (typically master)?
    
    - [ ] Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit?
    
    ### For code changes:
    - [ ] Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via mvn -Pcontrib-check clean install at the root nifi folder?
    - [ ] Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes?
    - [ ] If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under [ASF 2.0](http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a)? 
    - [ ] If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE file, including the main LICENSE file under nifi-assembly?
    - [ ] If applicable, have you updated the NOTICE file, including the main NOTICE file found under nifi-assembly?
    - [ ] If adding new Properties, have you added .displayName in addition to .name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties?
    
    ### For documentation related changes:
    - [ ] Have you ensured that format looks appropriate for the output in which it is rendered?
    
    ### Note:
    Please ensure that once the PR is submitted, you check travis-ci for build issues and submit an update to your PR as soon as possible.


You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

    $ git pull https://github.com/markap14/nifi NIFI-4834

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

    https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2445.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

    This closes #2445
    
----
commit cd091103e4a76e7b54e00257e5e18eaab3d389ec
Author: Mark Payne <ma...@...>
Date:   2018-01-31T16:50:42Z

    NIFI-4834: Updated AbstractJMSProcessor to use a separate SingleConnectionFactory per concurrent task instead of sharing one across the entire processor

----


> ConsumeJMS does not scale when given more than 1 thread
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NIFI-4834
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4834
>             Project: Apache NiFi
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Extensions
>            Reporter: Mark Payne
>            Assignee: Mark Payne
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 1.6.0
>
>
> When I run ConsumeJMS against a local broker, the performance is great. However, if I run against a broker that is running remotely with a 75 ms round trip time (i.e., somewhat high latency), then the performance is pretty poor, allowing me to receive only about 30-40 msgs/sec (1-2 MB/sec).
> Increasing the number of threads should result in multiple connections to the JMS Broker, which would provide better throughput. However, when I increase the number of Concurrent Tasks to 10, I see 10 consumers but only a single connection being created, so the throughput is no better (in fact it's a bit slower due to added lock contention).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)