[rabbitmq-discuss] Poor performance using a single RabbitMQ connection on high-latency networks
matthias at lshift.net
Tue Feb 2 12:35:12 GMT 2010
Matthew Sackman wrote:
> I wonder whether Matthias or Tony may recall why our server options
> are set as they are.
We don't want to set very large buffer sizes since we do not want to
increase the memory footprint of connections unnecessarily. The figures
we currently use are the minimum numbers above which I saw no
significant performance improvements in the tests I ran ~2 years ago.
But those tests weren't very extensive.
> Indeed, I'm glad that's fixed. I'll raise a bug internally to have a
> look at these options again. It's really a matter of providing some
> sensible defaults - I'm sure that on every platform, things can be
> improved by specific tunings, but it's a case of finding something that
> works well out of the box.
> If you have any comments or advice for us on these options then we're
> certainly all ears.
The difficulty is that there are so many variables affecting the result.
To work out the ideal default settings for the server we'd have to run
tests that vary all of the following in a sufficiently broad range to
capture most common rabbit deployments ...
- client buffer sizes
- network characteristics (latency and bandwidth)
- operating system
- message size
...and plot the latency stats achieved for various message rates (we may
find that certain settings improve latency for low throughput but
actually reduce overall throughput capacity).
Performing these tests and producing a report would make an ideal
community project since it requires very little knowledge of the server
or client internals.
Holger, do you want to have a first stab at it?
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss