You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by Geurt Schimmel <GS...@schubergphilis.com> on 2013/03/12 23:59:55 UTC
load balancing
I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2 nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess this is the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all the messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing would be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the loadbalancing behavior ?
Thanks,
Geurt
Re: load balancing
Posted by Christian Posta <ch...@gmail.com>.
yep, i know what nob expands to :)
but what i'm still not clear about is you said two nodes in a nob, then you
said 3. maybe it would be best to post your nob config. also, are your
clients (producers/consumers) using failover? or just the bridges?
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> 'Nob' expands to 'network of brokers'.
> Indeed, using random=false for all my bridges.
>
> Thanks
> Geurt
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 13 mrt. 2013, at 02:10, "Christian Posta" <ch...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > not sure what you mean with 3 nob's. you said earlier a two node network
> of
> > brokers.
> > do your producers/consumers use the failover url with random=true?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
> > GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> random=false. Actually, static bridges between 3 nob's, and to prevent
> >> undesirable network pathes when all nodes are up, I'm using
> random=false.
> >>
> >> Geurt
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On 13 mrt. 2013, at 01:41, "Christian Posta" <christian.posta@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I suppose you're using the failover URLs with random=true for all
> >> clients?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
> >>> GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
> >>>> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess
> this
> >> is
> >>>> the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all
> the
> >>>> messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing
> >> would
> >>>> be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the
> >> loadbalancing
> >>>> behavior ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Geurt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Christian Posta*
> >>> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> >>> twitter: @christianposta
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Christian Posta*
> > http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> > twitter: @christianposta
>
--
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta
Re: load balancing
Posted by Geurt Schimmel <GS...@schubergphilis.com>.
'Nob' expands to 'network of brokers'.
Indeed, using random=false for all my bridges.
Thanks
Geurt
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 mrt. 2013, at 02:10, "Christian Posta" <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not sure what you mean with 3 nob's. you said earlier a two node network of
> brokers.
> do your producers/consumers use the failover url with random=true?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
> GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>
>> random=false. Actually, static bridges between 3 nob's, and to prevent
>> undesirable network pathes when all nodes are up, I'm using random=false.
>>
>> Geurt
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 13 mrt. 2013, at 01:41, "Christian Posta" <ch...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose you're using the failover URLs with random=true for all
>> clients?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
>>> GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
>>>> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess this
>> is
>>>> the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all the
>>>> messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing
>> would
>>>> be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the
>> loadbalancing
>>>> behavior ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Geurt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Christian Posta*
>>> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
>>> twitter: @christianposta
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Posta*
> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> twitter: @christianposta
Re: load balancing
Posted by Christian Posta <ch...@gmail.com>.
not sure what you mean with 3 nob's. you said earlier a two node network of
brokers.
do your producers/consumers use the failover url with random=true?
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> random=false. Actually, static bridges between 3 nob's, and to prevent
> undesirable network pathes when all nodes are up, I'm using random=false.
>
> Geurt
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 13 mrt. 2013, at 01:41, "Christian Posta" <ch...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I suppose you're using the failover URLs with random=true for all
> clients?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
> > GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
> >> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess this
> is
> >> the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all the
> >> messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing
> would
> >> be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the
> loadbalancing
> >> behavior ?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Geurt
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Christian Posta*
> > http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> > twitter: @christianposta
>
--
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta
Re: load balancing
Posted by Geurt Schimmel <GS...@schubergphilis.com>.
random=false. Actually, static bridges between 3 nob's, and to prevent undesirable network pathes when all nodes are up, I'm using random=false.
Geurt
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 mrt. 2013, at 01:41, "Christian Posta" <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose you're using the failover URLs with random=true for all clients?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
> GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
>> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess this is
>> the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all the
>> messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing would
>> be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the loadbalancing
>> behavior ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Geurt
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Posta*
> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> twitter: @christianposta
Re: load balancing
Posted by Christian Posta <ch...@gmail.com>.
I suppose you're using the failover URLs with random=true for all clients?
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess this is
> the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all the
> messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing would
> be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the loadbalancing
> behavior ?
>
> Thanks,
> Geurt
>
--
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta
RE: load balancing
Posted by Geurt Schimmel <GS...@schubergphilis.com>.
Thanks !
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully [mailto:gary.tully@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:22 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: load balancing
have a peek at rebalanceClusterClients. The clients know of one broker and get told to rebalance when the second networked broker is started. In this way the broker does the random assignment so it is more evenly distributed.
some details in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3706?focusedCommentId=13205375&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13205375
and in the transport connector reference:
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html broker side failover.
On 12 March 2013 22:59, Geurt Schimmel <GS...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess
> this is the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to
> process all the messages, but there are situations where a more equal
> loadbalancing would be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to
> influence the loadbalancing behavior ?
>
> Thanks,
> Geurt
>
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Re: load balancing
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
have a peek at rebalanceClusterClients. The clients know of one broker and
get told to rebalance when the second networked broker is started. In this
way the broker does the random assignment so it is more evenly distributed.
some details in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3706?focusedCommentId=13205375&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13205375
and in the transport connector reference:
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html broker side
failover.
On 12 March 2013 22:59, Geurt Schimmel <GS...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess this is
> the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all the
> messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing would
> be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the loadbalancing
> behavior ?
>
> Thanks,
> Geurt
>
--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Re: load balancing
Posted by Geurt Schimmel <GS...@schubergphilis.com>.
5.8 stable
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 mrt. 2013, at 00:55, "Christian Posta" <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What version are you using?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
> GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
>> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess this is
>> the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all the
>> messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing would
>> be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the loadbalancing
>> behavior ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Geurt
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Posta*
> http://www.christianposta.com/blog
> twitter: @christianposta
Re: load balancing
Posted by Christian Posta <ch...@gmail.com>.
What version are you using?
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Geurt Schimmel <
GSchimmel@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> I'm sending 100k messages of 200 bytes each to a network-of-brokers (2
> nodes). Appears the load-balancing distribution is 83 vs 17. Guess this is
> the most effective way (from an ActiveMQ perspective) to process all the
> messages, but there are situations where a more equal loadbalancing would
> be preferable. Are there parameters or ways to influence the loadbalancing
> behavior ?
>
> Thanks,
> Geurt
>
--
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta