| Author |
Message
|
| GRIFF |
 Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:52 pm Post subject: IA97 (AnyQmgrInputNode) Performance Issues |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 64
Location: VA
|
I have recently been working with IA97 and seen a significant performance hit with IA97 versus local MQInput via queue on the broker queue manager. I do expect some hit on performance because of the client connection but I have gone from processing 160 msgs/sec to 5 msgs/sec.
Software is WMQ and WMB 7.0.0.1 running on Solaris 10(no virtualization) via Sun Sparc64.
I have read the PDF and have changed the "Queue Batch Size" in queueOps.java recompiled but no change in behavior. Within the node properties I am only connecting to one queue on a single queue manager processing 5000 small xml messages (60 bytes each).
Please let me know if you have any recommendations or need additional information. Also, if you are currently using IA97 please let me know what type of performance you are experiencing.
Thanks,
Griff |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| I do expect some hit on performance because of the client connection but I have gone from processing 160 msgs/sec to 5 msgs/sec. |
I'm confused. Please explain what you did to go from 160 to 5.
| Quote: |
| ...and have changed the "Queue Batch Size" |
Confused again. What did you change Queue Batch Size from/to?
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| GRIFF |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 64
Location: VA
|
Sorry for the confusion. I replaced an MQInput node with a AnyQmgrInputNode (via IA97). This caused the degredation from 160 to 5 msgs/sec. I changed the batch size from 5 to 50000 but did not see any difference.
Thank you for reading and please let me know if I need to add more details.
Thanks,
Griff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Instead of using IA97, you should consider using a JMSInput node to establish the client connection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| GRIFF |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 64
Location: VA
|
I am not familiar with JMSInput nodes - where do I put in the queue manager name for the queue manager I am trying to client connect to? The reason I am using IA97 is to have an input queue not on the broker queue manager.
Thanks for reading and please let me know if you need additional information.
Thanks,
Griff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:55 am Post subject: Re: IA97 (AnyQmgrInputNode) Performance Issues |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| GRIFF wrote: |
| Also, if you are currently using IA97 please let me know what type of performance you are experiencing. |
Current site used IA97 on largeish Windows machines with WMBv6.1.0.5 in early stages of development (before my time). WMB guy responsible described it as "a crock", citing some performance and many, many stability issues. They re-architected to move the input queues onto the broker box. It's worth pointing out this guy is a Java coder who retrained & has detailed knowledge of Java.
(Yes, this site has JCNs. It has 3 less than when I started & I'm working on the rest.....  )
Important points:
1) This is heresay as I'm repeating the words of another. I have no direct experience of this support pac.
2) I have no direct experience of this support pac. In 10 years (Yikes!) of using WMB I've never had a need for it
3) The architecture this site was trying to use was daft & even if this thing worked I'd have trouted the guy & moved the queues.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I do expect some hit on performance because of the client connection but I have gone from processing 160 msgs/sec to 5 msgs/sec. |
I'm confused. Please explain what you did to go from 160 to 5. |
If I'm reading the post correctly, went from the MQInput node to this support pac.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| GRIFF |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 64
Location: VA
|
| Correct; that was the only change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| GRIFF |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 64
Location: VA
|
| Well let me clarify my last post - only change to flow. Queue manager and queue changed to be not on the WMB host hence the need for IA97. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| Queue manager and queue changed to be not on the WMB host hence the need for IA97. |
You are presuming that IA97 is the only possible solution.
What was the problem statement that lead you to select IA97?
What other solutions did you look at? Why did you reject them?
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| GRIFF |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 64
Location: VA
|
I have not looked into any other solutions; IA97 was recommended by area IBM technical representative. I have not addressed my performance concerns with this individual to see what else might be a possibility.
Thanks,
Griff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| Software is WMQ and WMB 7.0.0.1 running on Solaris 10(no virtualization) via Sun Sparc64. |
Is this where the broker/qmgr reside?
Where is the non-broker qmgr where you getting the messages from? What platform and software?
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| GRIFF wrote: |
I have not looked into any other solutions; IA97 was recommended by area IBM technical representative. I have not addressed my performance concerns with this individual to see what else might be a possibility.
Thanks,
Griff |
As stated before using a JMSInputNode would have been an alternative...
Now as you move from the connection to the local qmgr to a connection across the network there are a lot of other factors that come to mind.
Network latency and network stability being among the major ones...
Would it be possible for the source qmgr to create a channel to the broker qmgr and send the messages there?... this should keep your performance optimal... and remember there are many ways to make this happen even across company borders (think MQIPT)... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| GRIFF |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 64
Location: VA
|
| Quote: |
| Where is the non-broker qmgr where you getting the messages from? What platform and software? |
Same hardware software versions at nonbroker qmgr:
Software is WMQ and WMB 7.0.0.1 running on Solaris 10(no virtualization) via Sun Sparc64.
MQInput is ideal but client wants messages to be pulled across a network boundary instead of being pushed to broker qmgr. Hence; more secure network tier pulling from less secure network tier.
Also have to admit not a strong Java guy; that was the appeal of IA97 where I could "plug and play".
Thanks,
Griff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| ... Hence; more secure network tier pulling from less secure network tier. |
Where did this belief come from?
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
