| Author |
Message
|
| Blomman |
 Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:34 am Post subject: MQ Tuning |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
Hi All!
Im kinda lost here....
The best way to trim, channels, TranmissionsQs and activeLogs?
I had problems with 2 different Qmanagers today when broker was sending alot of data to them.
I tried 2 diffrent solutions to quick fix the problems, the problem was that the
messages did get stuck on either TransmissionQ. Problem with syncing in channels etc...."UNEXPECTED_ASYNC_SIGNAL" from FDC.
What would be the best solution?
Or maybe im totally lost here??
Some input would be nice to help a rookie to find the right path..
-------------------------------------
Activ logsize(Default) 3primary, 2secondary, approximately 4mb size.
Set BATCHSZ to something like 50.
Set Maximum Message size to approximately 4mb.
-------------------------------------
OR
-------------------------------------
Activ logsize 12primary, 2secondary, approximately 4mb size.
Set BATCHSZ to something like 5.
Set Maximum Message size to approximately 100mb.
-------------------------------------
/Blomman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Blomman |
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
Oki maybe this was a kinda of a stupid topic.... 
However im still thinking of this, simply what would be best, config more active logs och just lover the BATCHSZ..If message data is heavy.
/Blomman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
It is best to tune your infrastructure so that it runs well at normal volumes and does not fail at high-but-expected volumes. You can never tune for the unexpected.
You can adjust the number of active logs, but it does not take affect until you restart the queue manager.
Changing the BATCHSZ takes effect immediately - but lowering it imposes a performance hit on all messages passing through the channel. You're increasing the number of syncpoints taken.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Blomman |
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
Thx for a good answer.
The best is to find a good balance of safe running and good performance, in lab enviroment of course before deploying it to production.
I blame it all on the programmers att my work that a writnig bad clients, u can never blame MQ if problems comes up....  (That was a joke).
/Blomman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Blomman |
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
Ok i wake up this post again, instead of creating a new one.
This is my scenario:
QM1 -> Broker -> QM2.
Is something failes the total amount of data that can be stucked on the transmissionQ(Broker -> QM2) is 1.6GB, building to this amount during 3days.
Then suddenly "something" is fixed ant this amount(1,6GB) of data starts to transfer to QM2, what kind of config should i have on QM2 if we talking BATCHSZ and Active logs??
/Blomman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Blomman wrote: |
| what kind of config should i have on QM2 |
Enough spare application grunt to process the data in a timely fashion?
You can't (directly) change logging parameters to deal with an exceptional situation and it's bad practice to try. The comment from jefflowrey holds - tune for the normal situation and allow for the worst.
You could artifically change BATCHSZ to move data through faster or slower, but this will have an impact on how much data the application has to deal with. Basically it's where do you want the data to sit: QM1 or QM2? QM1 is clearly dealing with it and has been for some days; how do you want it moved? Large or small chunks? Quickly or slowly?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Blomman |
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
| Quote: |
| You could artifically change BATCHSZ |
This is a nice thought, if alot of data is coming becuse of at stop that is now attended, i could dynamicly lower BATCHSZ.
| Quote: |
| to move data through faster or slower, but this will have an impact on how much data the application has to deal with |
Hehe i dont care about the application, i care about MQ...
| Quote: |
| Basically it's where do you want the data to sit: QM1 or QM2? |
The data probably sits depending where it was when the "problem" occured?
Nice input as usual, thx!
/Blomman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
[quote="Blomman]The data probably sits depending where it was when the "problem" occured?
[/quote]
Yes indeed, but do you want it to remain there, drip feeding over to QM2, or to move as fast as possible to it's destination on QM2 (with the attendant logging issues)?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
