[rabbitmq-discuss] Performance Observations and Interesting Behavior

Wed Feb 12 18:20:34 GMT 2014

Michael,

Thanks for the response - that's very interesting. We were quite interested
in your setup when you posted to the rabbit list about the setup for the
NYT :)

How exactly do you distribute the connections? Does the rabbit driver do
that for you by choosing from a list, or do you use some other method?

Cheers,

Ron

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Laing, Michael
<michael.laing at nytimes.com>wrote:

> That's interesting!
>
> We have removed all the load balancers from our core configurations in
> Amazon EC2 because we found they added no value, and, in fact provided
> troublesome additional points of failure. (We do use ELBs to find websocket
> endpoints in the client-facing retail layer)
>
> Our core clusters in Oregon and Dublin each have 50 - 100 non-local
> connections, randomly distributed, and are very stable.
>
> We use DNS with health checks for internal client connections in lieu of
> load balancers. Simple and rugged.
>
> Michael Laing
> NYTimes
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Ron Cordell <ron.cordell at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all --
>>
>> We've been performance testing RabbitMQ on Linux as we're about to move
>> our RabbitMQ infrastructure from Windows to Linux (as well as other
>> things). I wanted to share some of what we observed and if people have any
>> feedback. All tests were done using a 3-node cluster where most queues are
>> HA, with an F5 configured to provide a virtual IP to the application. There
>> is a single vHost.
>>
>> 1. On the same hardware the Linux installation easily outperforms the
>> Windows installation. It also uses fewer resources for the same throughput.
>>
>> 2. The Windows cluster becomes unstable and nodes start dropping
>> out/partitioning at around 1/3 max tested volume. The Linux cluster showed
>> no instability whatsoever up to maximum throughput.
>>
>> 3. Creating a cluster with 2 RAM nodes and 1 Disc node has the same disk
>> I/O requirements as 3 disc nodes. (This makes sense because as I believe
>> the RAM nodes will persist to disk for HA queues).
>>
>> 4. (here is the interesting one) When the F5 is configured to load
>> balance across the 3 nodes as a round-robin load balancer, maximum
>> throughput is significantly less than if the F5 sends all traffic to a
>> single node.
>>
>> I'd love any feedback, especially on #4.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> -ronc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140212/519752f8/attachment.html>