[rabbitmq-discuss] routing threads on a rabbitmq node

Brian Sullivan bsullivan at lindenlab.com
Wed Feb 3 20:05:23 GMT 2010

Hi Matthias,

That's good to know that those numbers look high to you.  Knowing where our
bounds are will help me readjust out configuration.

We have ~75 bindings, same as the number of queues.  We don't do many
multiple bindings per queue (if any).  This has increased faster than our
message volumes (more consuming applications to make use of the data), so I
believe this is the primary reason things are harder now than they used to

Unfortunately, moving to a direct exchange is in the works but not a quick
for us at this point.

What I would like to figure out is how to reorient my cluster to make things
more stable.  Knowing that the routing time is increasing due to the number
of bindings, I am not convinced that my plan of adding a rabbitmq node to
each producer is going to make things all that much better - the routing
table will still be the same, and it will need to do that cross-routing
you're talking about avoiding.  Even when we have a single producer catching
up in our current system, the node can only route at a certain rate, and
this is definitely not CPU bound.  I am curious why Erlang cannot spend more
time in that thread, but I don't know much about it - does that seem right
to you?

I am not sure what I can do to minimize cross-routing, other than to try to
keep our producers consolidated and keep the heaviest consumers (meaning the
ones with a binding to the most active topics - remember that all queues
bind to only one topic expression) separated on their own nodes, to remove
their queue management processing on the core routing function.  Ironically,
I was originally trying to keep the heaviest consumers on the routing nodes,
to minimize forwarding of messages - but if the cost magnifies with the
number of consumer queues, then it's likely that keeping the larger fanout
(but smaller throughput) of consumers on the routing nodes might be best.

The thing that concerns me is that my scalability here seems to be limited -
the only other thing I can think of doing is increasing my number of
producers to distribute the load even further and possibly do the local node
thing - then if our routing table keeps growing, I can manage scaling at the
producer level - not efficient maybe, but at least it can grow past the
threshold I appear to be running into.

Thanks for the background.  I would love to see more documentation on how
the process model works.  Let me know if the above triggers any other


On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Matthias Radestock <matthias at lshift.net>wrote:

> Brian,
> Brian Sullivan wrote:
>> 1) How many msgs/second are being published for this issue to occur?
>>  From a single producer, about 900 messages/sec during these burst catchup
>> periods.  Normal volumes then drop down to 300-500 mps throughout the day,
>> which we can keep up with for the most part.  Note that there are 8-9 such
>> producers, distributed across 2 nodes.
> So that's a 900Hz * 9 = 8.1kHz peak inbound rate?
>  4) How many queues do messages end up in, on average?
>> About the same number of bindings - 75.  We don't do many multiple
>> bindings per queue (if any).
> 8.1kHz inbound with a 75x fan-out ratio would require an outbound rate of
> >600kHz, which is way more than a two-node rabbit cluster can handle. So
> some backlog will certainly build up.
> It will take a while for messages to make it into queues. This isn't helped
> by lack of optimisation in two areas of the server code:
> - topic exchanges. As you know, they are currently totally unoptimised and
> the cost of determining the queues a message should be routed to is linear
> in the total number of bindings on the exchage. How many bindings are there
> in total in your case? If you can, please use a direct exchange.
> - cross-node routing in a cluster. A while ago we had to remove optimised
> cross-node routing since it turned out to break certain effect visibility
> guarantees required by AMQP. As a result, routing a message to N queues
> residing on a different node will result in N network transmissions of the
> message to that node, and N copies of the message at the node. If you can,
> don't use clustering or at least avoid configurations where producers and
> consumers connect to different nodes.
> Regards,
> Matthias.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20100203/f425fbce/attachment.htm 

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list