[rabbitmq-discuss] Does SSD improve rabbitmq's performance

Brett Cameron brett.r.cameron at gmail.com
Wed Nov 20 19:41:45 GMT 2013


Note that it is possible to change the file size via the
parameter (see http://www.rabbitmq.com/configure.html). While I've not
encountered any issues when changing this parameter I would suggest that
appropriate care needs to be exhibited (i.e. thorough testing).


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Graeme N <graeme at sudo.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Matthias Radestock <
> matthias at rabbitmq.com> wrote:
>> On 20/11/13 04:38, Graeme N wrote:
>>> Rabbit at the moment doesn't make much effort into making its
>>> workload append only and contiguous by default
>> Actually all disk writes in rabbit *are* append-only (plus the occasional
>> truncate). But when dealing with multiple disk-bound queues, there is
>> inevitably a fair bit of seeking going on. And SSDs are much quicker at
>> that.
> Well, I guess that multiple small files, even if they are individually
> written as append only, doesn't really qualify as an append-only workload
> in the sense I'd normally think of it. The reason to use an append-only
> workload is to ensure it performs well on spinning disks by avoiding seeks.
> Looking at the files under /var/lib/rabbitmq/mnesia/rabbit at hostname/msg_store_persistent
> on our busiest host, and we see ~390 files, all <= 17 MiB. Compare to MySQL
> or Riak, where we split the InnoDB or Bitcask append-only logs at 500 MiB,
> which is chosen so it fits inside of our hardware RAID controllers' BBU
> caches.
> Our big messages in RabbitMQ are 500kiB to 4MiB, so each of these 16 MiB
> chunks only stores ~10 of these messages, which is far smaller than our
> typical batch size of ~100 messages. Relatively speaking, this is a ton
> more overhead in many small files than we typically see in other datastores
> that bill themselves as spinning disk friendly / append only. When you
> consider that those other data stores use a single set of append-only logs
> for all queues/tables/buckets in the system, and rabbit seems to be
> segmenting them based on queue, it means that rabbit's workload contains at
> least an order of magnitude more seeks when busy than these other storage
> engines.
> So, while rabbit's workload at the file chunk level may technically be
> append only, it doesn't actually seem to avoid seeks in its workload, and
> we tend to see pretty massive persistent queue performance improvements by
> using SSDs. Thus, I wouldn't really consider its workload in the same class
> as most append-only storage systems.
> Graeme
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20131121/0e02bcca/attachment.htm>

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list