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 IndexWebSphere Message Broker SupportHTTP 1.1 vs HTTP 1.0 in IIB v9

Post new topicReply to topic
HTTP 1.1 vs HTTP 1.0 in IIB v9 View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
IIB_Intel
PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 7:54 am Post subject: HTTP 1.1 vs HTTP 1.0 in IIB v9 Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 07 May 2015
Posts: 26

Has someone used Http 1.1 with "keepaliveCOnnection" in IIB v9 over HTTP 1.0. Do you see performance improvement with that?

We are facing some performance issues with occasional spike in the response time.

The overall system is a combination of services communicating XML/HTTPS. We have enabled monitoring on flows and what we have observed is that requests from one flow to the other flow taking a delay of 50-500 ms occasionally.

This time gap is the time elapsed between HTTPRequest.Terminal.In of one flow and Transaction.Start of the other flow.

There could be 2 reasons (that I know off) for this.

1. Creation of new HTTP connection taking time. So we were thinking of changing property on HttpRequest node to use Http 1.1. Just wanted some experience/thoughts here?
2. Additional instance is required to process that particular request (the one that shows the spike) and IIB is taking time to create the new thread. Since over load is not that much < 5 TPS, I doubt this could be a reason as broker will create a new instance the moment all other become active.

Could there be any other reason, that we should think of?

Please note we use EG http/https listener and we have defined sufficient number of instances and maxThreadPool is set to 400 which is less than the total number of instances of all the flows in that EG.

Memory & CPU looks ok at the time of spikes and we are on IIB 9.0.0.5 on linux. The expected response time is 500-700 ms and we are acheiving that 85% of the time, its just that remaining 10-15% of the time response time varies from 1-10 seconds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zpat
PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 8:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5419
Location: UK

As with everything, using MQ would be the best protocol and communication between flows using a local queue manager should be very fast.
_________________
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
IIB_Intel
PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 2:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 07 May 2015
Posts: 26

yeah, agree but the current problem in hand is for http.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fjb_saper
PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 10:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand Poobah

Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 19097
Location: LI,NY

IIB_Intel wrote:
yeah, agree but the current problem in hand is for http.

Use Http 1.1. It will save you the time of building the connection each time. At 5 tps you should see an improvement.

Have fun
_________________
MQ & Broker admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
IIB_Intel
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 6:20 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 07 May 2015
Posts: 26

Any other parameter (other than the ones I mentioned in my original post) that could contribute to time gap between HTTPRequest.Terminal.In of one flow and Transaction.Start of the other flow (which is invoked by the HTTpRequest node)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zpat
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5419
Location: UK

IIB_Intel wrote:
yeah, agree but the current problem in hand is for http.


So get involved at the design stage to avoid this sort of problem.
_________________
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
IIB_Intel
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 8:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 07 May 2015
Posts: 26

The solution involved has composite services and individual micro-services are also called from outside. Using MQ is not an option here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topicReply to topic Page 1 of 1

MQSeries.net Forum IndexWebSphere Message Broker SupportHTTP 1.1 vs HTTP 1.0 in IIB v9
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.