[rabbitmq-discuss] Performance Observations and Interesting Behavior

Alvaro Videla videlalvaro at gmail.com
Tue Feb 11 23:47:12 GMT 2014

Hi Ron,

About #3, the disc vs ram node difference is for RabbitMQ's metadata
database, called Mnesia, it's not related on how messages are
stored/persisted to disk.



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:42 AM, 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

More information about the rabbitmq-discuss mailing list