| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Conversation Sharing and Heartbeats |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| SAFraser |
 Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:02 am Post subject: Conversation Sharing and Heartbeats |
 |
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
In some recent troubleshooting of channel timeouts after heartbeats went unanswered, we noticed something. It appears that when a heartbeat fails, the channel instance itself is torn down (not just a single conversation). So the channel count decreases by one but the connection count decreases by ten.
I guess this makes sense? The heartbeat operates at the instance level and not the conversation level? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
That would make sense, after all it's the client code handling the conversation sharing on the other end, not the individual threads, so if the heartbeat fails, the whole channel with all related converations fail.
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
This leads me to the conclusion that conversation sharing is best implemented when the client is "reliable".
Our trouble began when our client app servers suffered continual CPU starvation. We would see an app server thread hang for >65 seconds, followed by an RC2009. Then our svrconn would throw an AMQ9271, svrconn timeout of 65 seconds, and the channel instance would get torn down -- taking all 10 conversations with it.
The app servers have since been tuned and patched. Still, I am hesitant to turn conversation sharing back on. We have sufficient maxChannels allowed and lots of yummy system resources available on our MQ servers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
not only "reliable" also you have to look at "is it worth it" although conversations can be shared between threads if both or more threads are that active that the interfere with each other (i.e. they have to wait for each other to start sharing the same channel...) it's not worth it either as your performance of "busy" multi threaded clients will go down...
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
