| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Configuring TCPIP Nodes for Performance |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| smdavies99 |
 Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: Configuring TCPIP Nodes for Performance |
 |
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
I'm doing some prep work for a possible forthcoming project.
There will be lots of remote devices sending info at intermittent intervals to a Broker System. These devices use TCPIP and will open a connection, send the data and close it again. Repeat sometime later.
I've installed 6.1.0.3 on two test servers (Windows Server 2003) and imported the TCPIP Sample apps as a basis for what I need to do.
I've modified the SERVER end to just read the data and then in a compte node, write the message body to a DB2 table.
The Client end is basically the first part of the TCPIPSync example. Once the data has been sent, the flow ends.
Everything works fine if I send one or a number of messages at a slow rate (5/sec)
If I turn up the message rate then I loose data.
So I modified the TCP nodes at both ends to use a configurable service and increased the number of connections available.
This improved things a bit but I still lost 21 out of 2000 messages when they were sent at 15/sec.
We guestimate that we wil need to service well over 50/sec in the real project.
So, I'm wondering in there are some other node or flow configuration setings I can change to improve matters. I have experimented with Closing the connection at the server end after the data has been received and other combinations but I was still getting errors on the client saying there were no connections available.
I'm a bit stuck at present hence this posting.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| viswanath |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 33
|
| Did u tried increasing the tcp connections as required? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
It's a bit of an old thread to be re-opening, but smdavies99 DOES say that he did increase the number of connections.
The question is, if TCP is the right transport to use in the first place - it is not a "reliable" transport in that you can drop packets for no particular reason.
The value of switching to something like RealtimeTransport instead may be examined against having to tune networking infrastructure between two end points or build sophisticated retry/resend logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Thanks for the idea about using RealTimeTransport.
The project that this was for is on hold at the moment but it will get resurrected in 1-2 months once I get their database sorted out.
The customer (bless their cotton socks) want to move all their connections into broker to TCP/IP (  ) and don't seem to understand the inadequacies of the protocol. Their stance is that if the whole internet can run with it then I'm going to as well. They don't seem to understand the amount of work that has to be done to make, for example http work smoothly over TCP/IP.
That said, I feel that the TCP/IP nodes can't hold up under the sort of workloads that the WMQ ones do without even blinking OOTB.
The amount of time I & Others are likely going to spend getting this all to work would certainly cost more than a few WMQ Server licenses but .... (add catch-22 smiley here)
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| Their stance is that if the whole internet can run with it then I'm going to as well. |
FWIW I encountered exactly the same comment a while back. I asked if they'd ever seen the "don't press the refresh button or you'll buy it twice" message, the "our site is busy at the moment" message, needed to refresh a page to get all the pictures up, or had to sit waiting for a site to load.
Then asked them if they wanted internal uses to get that service, or worse still the accounting software to have to refresh (or not) when working.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
