You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID> on 2025/10/30 23:02:54 UTC
Performance impact of acceptor router
Hi,
we are using router:
--
Pagarbiai,
Vilius Šumskas
Rivile
IT vadovas
+370 614 75713
Re: Performance impact of connection router
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
> A little more CPU usage compared to no UUID namespace configuration at
all, or compared to the old temp. queue namespace?
Both.
Justin
On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 8:33 AM Vilius Šumskas
<vi...@rivile.lt.invalid> wrote:
> A little more CPU usage compared to no UUID namespace configuration at
> all, or compared to the old temp. queue namespace? To correct my previous
> statement, we *migrated* from temp. namespace to new UUID namespace
> configuration.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 3:11 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Performance impact of connection router
>
> There will be a little more CPU usage when using the uuid-namespace since
> the broker has to detect the UUID, but again, I wouldn't expect that to be
> significant.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 1:58 AM Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and one more thing, we also started using the new UUID namespace
> > configuration and security rules in 2.42.0. But I guess that should
> > not be a problem performance wise(?). Most of our connections use
> > temporary UUID queues to reply to.
> >
> > --
> > Vilius
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:51 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Performance impact of connection router
> >
> > I didn't at the moment, but I will try to change configuration on our
> > production system during next maintenance window to see how it affects
> > CPU utilization.
> >
> > The reason I'm asking is that I started to investigate why one of our
> > clusters has a considerable CPU usage, even though the throughput load
> > (message count and size) is not that big at all. It is either:
> > a) a connection router configuration we recently introduced, or
> > b) something changed on the application side, maybe how developers
> > close and open connections, or something like that.
> >
> > --
> > Vilius
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 5:18 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Performance impact of connection router
> >
> > The performance impact is hard to judge, but I wouldn't expect it to
> > be much as it really just adds one invocation of
> > java.util.regex.Matcher#matches for every connection.
> >
> > Have you conducted performance tests with and without the router? If
> > so, what did you find?
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Vilius Šumskas
> > <vi...@rivile.lt.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry last message went unfinished to the list.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > We are using Artemis router:
> > > <connection-router name="deny-privileged-users">
> > > <key-type>ROLE_NAME</key-type>
> > > <local-target-filter>^(?!amq$).*$</local-target-filter>
> > > </connection-router>
> > >
> > > to filter out unwanted users from connecting to one of our acceptors.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering, what is the performance impact of such router if we
> > > have large amount of non-persistent connections from the clients? We
> > > have ~3k connections at the moment with a fair amount of them
> > > constantly disconnecting and connecting as per business requirements.
> > > Connections are TLS protected, if that make a difference.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Vilius
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:03 AM
> > > To: users@activemq.apache.org
> > > Subject: Performance impact of acceptor router
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > we are using router:
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pagarbiai,
> > >
> > > Vilius Šumskas
> > > Rivile
> > > IT vadovas
> > > +370 614 75713
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org For
> > > further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org For
> > further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
RE: Performance impact of connection router
Posted by Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>.
A little more CPU usage compared to no UUID namespace configuration at all, or compared to the old temp. queue namespace? To correct my previous statement, we *migrated* from temp. namespace to new UUID namespace configuration.
--
Vilius
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 3:11 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance impact of connection router
There will be a little more CPU usage when using the uuid-namespace since the broker has to detect the UUID, but again, I wouldn't expect that to be significant.
Justin
On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 1:58 AM Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.invalid> wrote:
> Oh, and one more thing, we also started using the new UUID namespace
> configuration and security rules in 2.42.0. But I guess that should
> not be a problem performance wise(?). Most of our connections use
> temporary UUID queues to reply to.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:51 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Performance impact of connection router
>
> I didn't at the moment, but I will try to change configuration on our
> production system during next maintenance window to see how it affects
> CPU utilization.
>
> The reason I'm asking is that I started to investigate why one of our
> clusters has a considerable CPU usage, even though the throughput load
> (message count and size) is not that big at all. It is either:
> a) a connection router configuration we recently introduced, or
> b) something changed on the application side, maybe how developers
> close and open connections, or something like that.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 5:18 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Performance impact of connection router
>
> The performance impact is hard to judge, but I wouldn't expect it to
> be much as it really just adds one invocation of
> java.util.regex.Matcher#matches for every connection.
>
> Have you conducted performance tests with and without the router? If
> so, what did you find?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Vilius Šumskas
> <vi...@rivile.lt.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry last message went unfinished to the list.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > We are using Artemis router:
> > <connection-router name="deny-privileged-users">
> > <key-type>ROLE_NAME</key-type>
> > <local-target-filter>^(?!amq$).*$</local-target-filter>
> > </connection-router>
> >
> > to filter out unwanted users from connecting to one of our acceptors.
> >
> > I'm wondering, what is the performance impact of such router if we
> > have large amount of non-persistent connections from the clients? We
> > have ~3k connections at the moment with a fair amount of them
> > constantly disconnecting and connecting as per business requirements.
> > Connections are TLS protected, if that make a difference.
> >
> > --
> > Vilius
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:03 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org
> > Subject: Performance impact of acceptor router
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we are using router:
> >
> > --
> > Pagarbiai,
> >
> > Vilius Šumskas
> > Rivile
> > IT vadovas
> > +370 614 75713
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org For
> > further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org For
> further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
Re: Performance impact of connection router
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
There will be a little more CPU usage when using the uuid-namespace since
the broker has to detect the UUID, but again, I wouldn't expect that to be
significant.
Justin
On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 1:58 AM Vilius Šumskas
<vi...@rivile.lt.invalid> wrote:
> Oh, and one more thing, we also started using the new UUID namespace
> configuration and security rules in 2.42.0. But I guess that should not be
> a problem performance wise(?). Most of our connections use temporary UUID
> queues to reply to.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:51 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Performance impact of connection router
>
> I didn't at the moment, but I will try to change configuration on our
> production system during next maintenance window to see how it affects CPU
> utilization.
>
> The reason I'm asking is that I started to investigate why one of our
> clusters has a considerable CPU usage, even though the throughput load
> (message count and size) is not that big at all. It is either:
> a) a connection router configuration we recently introduced, or
> b) something changed on the application side, maybe how developers close
> and open connections, or something like that.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 5:18 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Performance impact of connection router
>
> The performance impact is hard to judge, but I wouldn't expect it to be
> much as it really just adds one invocation of
> java.util.regex.Matcher#matches for every connection.
>
> Have you conducted performance tests with and without the router? If so,
> what did you find?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry last message went unfinished to the list.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > We are using Artemis router:
> > <connection-router name="deny-privileged-users">
> > <key-type>ROLE_NAME</key-type>
> > <local-target-filter>^(?!amq$).*$</local-target-filter>
> > </connection-router>
> >
> > to filter out unwanted users from connecting to one of our acceptors.
> >
> > I'm wondering, what is the performance impact of such router if we
> > have large amount of non-persistent connections from the clients? We
> > have ~3k connections at the moment with a fair amount of them
> > constantly disconnecting and connecting as per business requirements.
> > Connections are TLS protected, if that make a difference.
> >
> > --
> > Vilius
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:03 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org
> > Subject: Performance impact of acceptor router
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we are using router:
> >
> > --
> > Pagarbiai,
> >
> > Vilius Šumskas
> > Rivile
> > IT vadovas
> > +370 614 75713
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org For
> > further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
RE: Performance impact of connection router
Posted by Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>.
Oh, and one more thing, we also started using the new UUID namespace configuration and security rules in 2.42.0. But I guess that should not be a problem performance wise(?). Most of our connections use temporary UUID queues to reply to.
--
Vilius
-----Original Message-----
From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:51 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: RE: Performance impact of connection router
I didn't at the moment, but I will try to change configuration on our production system during next maintenance window to see how it affects CPU utilization.
The reason I'm asking is that I started to investigate why one of our clusters has a considerable CPU usage, even though the throughput load (message count and size) is not that big at all. It is either:
a) a connection router configuration we recently introduced, or
b) something changed on the application side, maybe how developers close and open connections, or something like that.
--
Vilius
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 5:18 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance impact of connection router
The performance impact is hard to judge, but I wouldn't expect it to be much as it really just adds one invocation of java.util.regex.Matcher#matches for every connection.
Have you conducted performance tests with and without the router? If so, what did you find?
Justin
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry last message went unfinished to the list.
>
> ---
>
> We are using Artemis router:
> <connection-router name="deny-privileged-users">
> <key-type>ROLE_NAME</key-type>
> <local-target-filter>^(?!amq$).*$</local-target-filter>
> </connection-router>
>
> to filter out unwanted users from connecting to one of our acceptors.
>
> I'm wondering, what is the performance impact of such router if we
> have large amount of non-persistent connections from the clients? We
> have ~3k connections at the moment with a fair amount of them
> constantly disconnecting and connecting as per business requirements.
> Connections are TLS protected, if that make a difference.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:03 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Performance impact of acceptor router
>
> Hi,
>
> we are using router:
>
> --
> Pagarbiai,
>
> Vilius Šumskas
> Rivile
> IT vadovas
> +370 614 75713
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org For
> further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
RE: Performance impact of connection router
Posted by Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>.
I didn't at the moment, but I will try to change configuration on our production system during next maintenance window to see how it affects CPU utilization.
The reason I'm asking is that I started to investigate why one of our clusters has a considerable CPU usage, even though the throughput load (message count and size) is not that big at all. It is either:
a) a connection router configuration we recently introduced, or
b) something changed on the application side, maybe how developers close and open connections, or something like that.
--
Vilius
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 5:18 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance impact of connection router
The performance impact is hard to judge, but I wouldn't expect it to be much as it really just adds one invocation of java.util.regex.Matcher#matches for every connection.
Have you conducted performance tests with and without the router? If so, what did you find?
Justin
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry last message went unfinished to the list.
>
> ---
>
> We are using Artemis router:
> <connection-router name="deny-privileged-users">
> <key-type>ROLE_NAME</key-type>
> <local-target-filter>^(?!amq$).*$</local-target-filter>
> </connection-router>
>
> to filter out unwanted users from connecting to one of our acceptors.
>
> I'm wondering, what is the performance impact of such router if we
> have large amount of non-persistent connections from the clients? We
> have ~3k connections at the moment with a fair amount of them
> constantly disconnecting and connecting as per business requirements.
> Connections are TLS protected, if that make a difference.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:03 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Performance impact of acceptor router
>
> Hi,
>
> we are using router:
>
> --
> Pagarbiai,
>
> Vilius Šumskas
> Rivile
> IT vadovas
> +370 614 75713
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org For
> further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
Re: Performance impact of connection router
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
The performance impact is hard to judge, but I wouldn't expect it to be
much as it really just adds one invocation
of java.util.regex.Matcher#matches for every connection.
Have you conducted performance tests with and without the router? If so,
what did you find?
Justin
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Vilius Šumskas
<vi...@rivile.lt.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry last message went unfinished to the list.
>
> ---
>
> We are using Artemis router:
> <connection-router name="deny-privileged-users">
> <key-type>ROLE_NAME</key-type>
> <local-target-filter>^(?!amq$).*$</local-target-filter>
> </connection-router>
>
> to filter out unwanted users from connecting to one of our acceptors.
>
> I'm wondering, what is the performance impact of such router if we have
> large amount of non-persistent connections from the clients? We have ~3k
> connections at the moment with a fair amount of them constantly
> disconnecting and connecting as per business requirements. Connections are
> TLS protected, if that make a difference.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:03 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Performance impact of acceptor router
>
> Hi,
>
> we are using router:
>
> --
> Pagarbiai,
>
> Vilius Šumskas
> Rivile
> IT vadovas
> +370 614 75713
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
RE: Performance impact of connection router
Posted by Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>.
Sorry last message went unfinished to the list.
---
We are using Artemis router:
<connection-router name="deny-privileged-users">
<key-type>ROLE_NAME</key-type>
<local-target-filter>^(?!amq$).*$</local-target-filter>
</connection-router>
to filter out unwanted users from connecting to one of our acceptors.
I'm wondering, what is the performance impact of such router if we have large amount of non-persistent connections from the clients? We have ~3k connections at the moment with a fair amount of them constantly disconnecting and connecting as per business requirements. Connections are TLS protected, if that make a difference.
--
Vilius
-----Original Message-----
From: Vilius Šumskas <vi...@rivile.lt.INVALID>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:03 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Performance impact of acceptor router
Hi,
we are using router:
--
Pagarbiai,
Vilius Šumskas
Rivile
IT vadovas
+370 614 75713