[rabbitmq-discuss] Possibly latency issues

Sam Crawley samc at catalyst.net.nz
Tue Feb 14 02:47:43 GMT 2012


Thanks for the feedback (and apologies for the delay in responding).

OK, I've reduced the variables even further and tested this on a single
machine, running Debian Squeeze. I've built Erlang version 15B. RabbitMQ
is installed from the RabbitMQ debian repo without any configuration.
rabbitmqctl status gives me:

Status of node 'rabbit at xxxx' ...
                        {os_mon,"CPO  CXC 138 46","2.2.8"},
                        {sasl,"SASL  CXC 138 11","2.2"},
                        {mnesia,"MNESIA  CXC 138 12","4.6"},
                        {stdlib,"ERTS  CXC 138 10","1.18"},
                        {kernel,"ERTS  CXC 138 10","2.15"}]},
 {erlang_version,"Erlang R15B (erts-5.9) [source] [64-bit]
[async-threads:30] [kernel-poll:true]\n"},

I use the following Perl script to send an receive messages (no longer
using our own client for this test, instead using Net::RabbitMQ, a
wrapper around librabbitmq-c, available from CPAN... also reduced the
message size - it doesn't seem to be a factor):


use strict;
use warnings;

use v5.10;
use Time::HiRes qw(gettimeofday tv_interval);
use Net::RabbitMQ;
use Statistics::Basic qw(:all);
use List::Util qw(max min);

my $length = 5;
my $queue = 'my_queue';

my $mq = Net::RabbitMQ->new();
$mq->connect("localhost", { user => "guest", password => "guest" });
$mq->queue_declare(1, $queue);

my $payload = 'a' x $length;

my @times;

$mq->consume(1, $queue, {});

for (1..1000) {
    $mq->publish(1, $queue, $payload);

    my @start = gettimeofday();

    my $msg = $mq->recv();
    push @times, tv_interval( \@start ); 


my $longest = max @times;
my $shortest = min @times;

print "Longest request: $longest, Shortest Request: $shortest\n"; 
say "Mean Req time: " . mean(@times);


AFAIK, acks, durable queues, etc. are all turned off.

Running this, I always get an average time (and I'm obviously only
timing the reading of messages) of 0.04s. (FWIW, I get the same with our
home grown client). 

Does it seem like there's something wrong here?


On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 04:50 +0000, Chris Chew wrote:
> Hi Sam.
> It's definitely worth trying a new version of Erlang.  Something in the 14B range or newer should perform noticeably better.
> Also, are you doing a basicGet or basicConsume when listening for the messages?
> Cheers,
> Chris
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 19:46, "Sam Crawley" <samc at catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've been trying to track down some performance issues in our
> > application since switching to RabbitMQ (previously used Spread), and it
> > seems latency for a single round trip message is an issue.
> > 
> > In a simple(ish) benchmark I've created, I have a daemon that blocks,
> > waiting for a message. When it receives one, it sends a message back to
> > the original sender. I then have a script that runs on another machine
> > (on the same LAN), which sends messages of about 5k in size, and records
> > the time for the round trip.
> > 
> > In these tests, I get an average of about 0.1s for the round trip. Does
> > this seem unreasonably slow? In an identical test using Spread, I get
> > times of around 0.01s (the application performance issue we're seeing is
> > showing RabbitMQ about 3-4 times slower than Spread).
> > 
> > I realise it's quite likely the problem is something odd I'm doing, but
> > I just want to rule out anything obvious at this stage. Could it be OS,
> > Erlang version, etc?
> > 
> > I'm running on Debian Lenny, with RabbitMQ 2.7.1, and Erlang 12b3 (from
> > the standard Lenny package). Are there any known issues with this
> > configuration, or any other factors I might be missing?
> > 
> > The client is written in Perl, using a home-grown client (but based on
> > Net::AMQP), as there wasn't really much suitable to our purposes on
> > CPAN. I hope to have this client on CPAN sometime soon, and will likely
> > ask for a review for people who might have comments. It's possible
> > (likely?) it's not as efficient as it could be, and would be nice to
> > rule that out somehow.
> > 
> > Would appreciate any help.. apologies if I haven't given all the
> > relevant information.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Sam Crawley.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> > rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> > https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list