ASG
IBM
Zystems
Cressida
Icon
Netflexity
 
  MQSeries.net
Search  Search       Tech Exchange      Education      Certifications      Library      Info Center      SupportPacs      LinkedIn  Search  Search                                                                   FAQ  FAQ   Usergroups  Usergroups
 
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages
 
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support RSS Feed - Message Broker Support

MQSeries.net Forum Index » IBM MQ Performance Monitoring » Linux TCP tuning for WMQ

Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2
 Linux TCP tuning for WMQ « View previous topic :: View next topic » 
Author Message
zpat
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5849
Location: UK

Run the "mqconfig" script to check you have the correct kernel settings.

http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21271236
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
romankhar
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Novice

Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 12

bruce2359 wrote:
romankhar wrote:
I will work on persistent messaging tests as it does not need as much bandwidth.

Really? A 100Meg persistent message uses less bandwidth than a 100Meg non-persistent message?


Very funny

The messages are the same size, but despite the fact that I have 4 SSDs in the server, the rate of 1MB persistent messages is about half of the rate of non-persistent messages, so the network does not get saturated.

I will package results and publish on my blog when all is ready - I will also include Apache ActiveMQ results: http://whywebsphere.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bruce2359
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9396
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

romankhar wrote:
...the rate of 1MB persistent messages is about half of the rate of non-persistent messages ...

Rate of what exactly? What exactly are you measuring?

Are you measuring only network transmission? Network bandwidth is measured in Mb or Gb per second. Are you saying that persistent messages take more Mb or Gb per second to flow across the network than non-persistent messages?

Are you including the time it takes for your application to create the messages? Are you saying that the aggregate throughput is less for persistent messages?

Please be precise.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
romankhar
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Novice

Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 12

bruce2359 wrote:
romankhar wrote:
...the rate of 1MB persistent messages is about half of the rate of non-persistent messages ...

Rate of what exactly? What exactly are you measuring?

Are you measuring only network transmission? Network bandwidth is measured in Mb or Gb per second. Are you saying that persistent messages take more Mb or Gb per second to flow across the network than non-persistent messages?

Are you including the time it takes for your application to create the messages? Are you saying that the aggregate throughput is less for persistent messages?

Please be precise.


I am measuring number of messages per second for the REQUESTOR which sends the message to the server and later gets a reply back from RESPONDER. Here is a description of my tests for those interested - I will update it a bit and publish on the blog, but this is pretty close to final: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IL_xFkXVjgkIqfUI7HVloOE9iees3qL1YHIls9BxWUI/edit?usp=sharing

Since persistent messaging is slower, the load on the network is less.

Here are preliminary performance results - still in the process of tuning things for both WMQ and for AMQ: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HT-HuSybds9UE40a9pSFVn3sTAJBJvKrA5BGolKQHTA/edit?usp=sharing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bruce2359
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9396
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

The first url ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IL_xFkXVjgkIqfUI7HVloOE9iees3qL1YHIls9BxWUI/edit?usp=sharing ) returns a Table of Contents list of 18 items. To which of these are you referring?

The second url returns an error from google docs.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
fjb_saper
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20696
Location: LI,NY

Moving to performance forum

By the way I was able to access both links. Nice document on the results!
_________________
MQ & Broker admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
romankhar
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Novice

Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 12

Michael Dag wrote:
would be interesting to see if you could package some of these tests to run on different hardware, different setups and being able to compare results...


I did package my tests into an automated script and you can read about it and download scripts from here: http://whywebsphere.com/2014/03/13/websphere-mq-and-apache-activemq-performance-comparison-part-1/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
romankhar
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Novice

Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 12

zpat wrote:
Run the "mqconfig" script to check you have the correct kernel settings.

http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21271236


I always run mqconfig before and after WMQ install - here is what I have now:

Code:
[roman@mqhost mq]$ /opt/mqm/bin/mqconfig
mqconfig: Analyzing Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.5 (Santiago)
          settings for WebSphere MQ V7.5

System V Semaphores
  semmsl     (sem:1)  1000 semaphores                    IBM>=500          PASS
  semmns     (sem:2)  30 of 512000 semaphores    (0%)    IBM>=256000       PASS
  semopm     (sem:3)  500 operations                     IBM>=250          PASS
  semmni     (sem:4)  9 of 2048 sets             (0%)    IBM>=1024         PASS

System V Shared Memory
  shmmax              68719476736 bytes                  IBM>=268435456    PASS
  shmmni              58 of 4096 sets            (1%)    IBM>=4096         PASS
  shmall              219480 of 4294967296 pages (0%)    IBM>=2097152      PASS

System Settings
  file-max            6976 of 1000000 files      (0%)    IBM>=524288       PASS
  tcp_keepalive_time  300 seconds                        IBM<=300          PASS

Current User Limits (roman)
  nofile       (-Hn)  20480 files                        IBM>=10240        PASS
  nofile       (-Sn)  20480 files                        IBM>=10240        PASS
  nproc        (-Hu)  58 of 31285 processes      (0%)    IBM>=4096         PASS
  nproc        (-Su)  58 of 4096 processes       (1%)    IBM>=4096         PASS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2 Page 2 of 2

MQSeries.net Forum Index » IBM MQ Performance Monitoring » Linux TCP tuning for WMQ
Jump to:  



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
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP
 
 


Theme by Dustin Baccetti
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Copyright © MQSeries.net. All rights reserved.