I'm trying to switch from a legacy jms broker to ActiveMQ.
One thing I cannot figure out is a warning in the logs once per hour:
WARN | Transport Connection to: tcp://127.0.0.1:38542 failed: java.io.IOException:
Frame size of 1 GB larger than max allowed 100 MB | ...
It's obviously some scheduled job in ActiveMQ that outputs this warning,
because it comes at the same minute every hour,
regardless of whether any messages are sent or not.
But what exactly means "Frame size" here?
We are not sending any jms-messages larger than a few kilobytes or so...
I read you can increase this "maxFramesize" in the connector, but doesn't help either.
When I try set it to 1GB (1073741824) (or higher) :
<transportConnector name="openwire"
uri="tcp://0.0.0.0:61616?maximumConnections=100&wireFormat.maxFrameSize=1073741824"/>
I still see the (now absurd) warning-message:
WARN | Transport Connection to: tcp://127.0.0.1:42256 failed: java.io.IOException:
Frame size of 1 GB larger than max allowed 1 GB
What is ActiveMQ actually complaining about?
And how can I fix it?
ActiveMQ 5 would only log this message if someone was sending your broker a message that is encoded to a size larger than the configured limit. Since it happens to you on a regular interval then I'd look for some external resource that is doing something silly like trying to telnet into the broker Openwire port to check liveness and sending some garbage string or some such. The broker would not be logging that error unless something was inbound so you need to start looking for the source of the errant sender.
Related
We have been facing an issue where message rate of a xmitq is very slow comparing with what should be a normal performance.
We have many other Qmgrs with bigger MQ flows that don't have the same issue.
Our HUB qmgr connects to business line in the same company HUB qmgr, and even the destination queues on their side being empty the flow is really slow.
At OS and Network level they say nothing can be done. At MQ we have changed the Buffersizes so it matches the OS level and uses the system tcp windows.
Now at MQ level we have the channel SDR setup with BATCHSZ to 100, but seems the receiver is configured with 30.
We noticed that because we see messages flow in batches fof 30 messages. Also not sure if that is related but we see the XMITQ havs always 30 uncommited messages.
Our questiong for advice.
Would increase the BATCHSZ parameter on SDR/RCVR help the perfomance?
Is there any other parameter at MQ level that could help it?
DIS CHS(NAME) ALL
AMQ8417: Display Channel Status details.
CHANNEL(QMGRA.QMGRB.T7) CHLTYPE(SDR)
BATCHES(234) BATCHSZ(30)
BUFSRCVD(235) BUFSSENT(6391)
BYTSRCVD(6996) BYTSSENT(14396692)
CHSTADA(2020-04-16) CHSTATI(14.38.17)
COMPHDR(NONE,NONE) COMPMSG(NONE,NONE)
COMPRATE(0,0) COMPTIME(0,0)
CONNAME(159.50.69.38(48702)) CURLUWID(398F3E5EEA43381C)
CURMSGS(30) CURRENT
CURSEQNO(43488865) EXITTIME(0,0)
HBINT(300) INDOUBT(YES)
JOBNAME(000051FC00000001) LOCLADDR(10.185.8.122(54908))
LONGRTS(999999999) LSTLUWID(398F3E5EE943381C)
LSTMSGDA(2020-04-16) LSTMSGTI(14.49.46)
LSTSEQNO(43488835) MCASTAT(RUNNING)
MONCHL(HIGH) MSGS(6386)
NETTIME(2789746,3087573) NPMSPEED(NORMAL)
RQMNAME(QMGRB) SHORTRTS(10)
SSLCERTI(*******************)
SSLKEYDA( ) SSLKEYTI( )
SSLPEER(*******************)
SSLRKEYS(0) STATUS(RUNNING)
STOPREQ(NO) SUBSTATE(RECEIVE)
XBATCHSZ(23,7) XMITQ(QMGRB.X7)
XQTIME(215757414,214033427) RVERSION(08000008)
RPRODUCT(MQMM)
qm.ini:
Log:
LogPrimaryFiles=10
LogSecondaryFiles=10
LogFilePages=16384
LogType=LINEAR
LogBufferPages=4096
LogPath=/apps/wmq/QMGR/log/QMGR/
LogWriteIntegrity=SingleWrite
Service:
Name=AuthorizationService
EntryPoints=13
TCP:
SvrSndBuffSize=0
SvrRcvBuffSize=0
ServiceComponent:
Service=AuthorizationService
Name=MQSeries.UNIX.auth.service
Module=/opt/mqm75/lib64/amqzfu
ComponentDataSize=0
Channels:
MaxChannels=500
UPDATED: 15:41 GMT
Just to update the information, both sides are now with BATCHSZ 100 and seems slightly.
AMQ8417: Display Channel Status details.
CHANNEL(QMGRA.QMGRB.T7) CHLTYPE(SDR)
BATCHES(403) BATCHSZ(100)
BUFSRCVD(405) BUFSSENT(23525)
BYTSRCVD(11756) BYTSSENT(53751066)
CHSTADA(2020-04-17) CHSTATI(15.13.51)
COMPHDR(NONE,NONE) COMPMSG(NONE,NONE)
COMPRATE(0,0) COMPTIME(0,0)
CONNAME(159.50.69.38(48702)) CURLUWID(6D66985E94343410)
CURMSGS(0) CURRENT
CURSEQNO(44115897) EXITTIME(0,0)
HBINT(300) INDOUBT(NO)
JOBNAME(0000172A00000001) LOCLADDR(10.185.8.122(2223))
LONGRTS(999999999) LSTLUWID(6D66985E93343410)
LSTMSGDA(2020-04-17) LSTMSGTI(15.30.06)
LSTSEQNO(44115897) MCASTAT(RUNNING)
MONCHL(HIGH) MSGS(23505)
NETTIME(101563,480206) NPMSPEED(NORMAL)
RQMNAME(QMGRB) SHORTRTS(10)
SSLCERTI(*************************************)
SSLKEYDA( ) SSLKEYTI( )
SSLPEER(****************************)
SSLRKEYS(0) STATUS(RUNNING)
STOPREQ(NO) SUBSTATE(MQGET)
XBATCHSZ(1,1) XMITQ(QMGRB.X7)
XQTIME(191225,794134) RVERSION(08000008)
RPRODUCT(MQMM)
AMQ8450: Display queue status details.
QUEUE(QMGRB.X7) TYPE(QUEUE)
CURDEPTH(0) IPPROCS(1)
LGETDATE(2020-04-17) LGETTIME(15.30.06)
LPUTDATE(2020-04-17) LPUTTIME(15.30.06)
MEDIALOG(S2488154.LOG) MONQ(LOW)
MSGAGE(0) OPPROCS(9)
QTIME(794134, 191225) UNCOM(NO)
I'll put a few observations in this answer, but based on any further feedback I may add more.
You are running a very old version of the software on the sender side, MQ 7.5 went out of support almost two years ago (April 30 2018). IBM for a cost will provide extended support for an additional three years, so maybe you fall in that group. The 7.5.0.2 maintenance release itself came out in July 11th 2013, so it is almost seven years old at this point. I would strongly suggest you move to a newer version.
Note that MQ v8.0 goes out of support April 30 2020, and IBM just announced a few days ago that MQ v9.0 goes out of support September 30 2021. When you do migrate you should go with either 9.1 which has no announced end of support (they give five years minimum so it could be 2023) or go with the next version of MQ that should be out some time this year.
You mention setting the following:
TCP:
SvrSndBuffSize=0
SvrRcvBuffSize=0
The above setting apply to the SVRCONN end of a client connection. You can see this in the MQ v7.5 Knowledge Center page WebSphere MQ>Configuring>Changing configuration information>Changing queue manager configuration information>TCP, LU62, NETBIOS, and SPX:
SvrSndBuffSize=32768|number
The size in bytes of the TCP/IP send buffer used by the server end of a client-connection
server-connection channel.
SvrRcvBuffSize=32768|number
The size in bytes of the TCP/IP receive buffer used by the server end of a client-connection
server-connection channel.
At IBM MQ v7.5.0.2 APAR IV58073 introduced the concept of setting various buffer settings to a value to 0 which means that it will allow the operating system defaults to be used. Unfortunately like many things in the Knowledge Center it does not look like IBM documented this correctly for 7.5.
You can however review the IBM MQ v8.0 Knowledge Center to get the full picture regarding these settings at the page Configuring>Changing configuration information>Changing queue manager configuration information>TCP, LU62, and NETBIOS, specifically you would want to set these two settings to have any impact on your Sender Channel:
SndBuffSize=number| 0
The size in bytes of the TCP/IP send buffer used by the sending end of
channels. This stanza value can be overridden by a stanza more
specific to the channel type, for example RcvSndBuffSize. If the
value is set as zero, the operating system defaults are used. If no
value is set, then the IBM MQ default, 32768, is used.
RcvSndBuffSize=number| 0
The size in bytes of the TCP/IP send buffer used by the sender end of
a receiver channel. If the value is set as zero, the operating system
defaults are used. If no value is set, then the IBM MQ default, 32768,
is used.
Starting at IBM MQ v8.0 any newly created queue manager will have all of the following in the qm.ini:
TCP:
SndBuffSize=0
RcvBuffSize=0
RcvSndBuffSize=0
RcvRcvBuffSize=0
ClntSndBuffSize=0
ClntRcvBuffSize=0
SvrSndBuffSize=0
SvrRcvBuffSize=0
However, any queue manager that is upgraded will not by default get those settings, meaning if those are not present they will not be added, if they are present they will remain the same. If the setting is not present then as it says above "the IBM MQ default, 32768, is used."
I had extensive discussions with IBM support on this topic and came to the conclusion that they did not see any reason to not set it to 0, they only saw benefit in doing so, but with an abundance of caution they do not change it to 0 for you.
I would recommend you add all of those to your qm.ini, but at minimum add the two I highlighted above.
These are good setting to implement but may not solve your problem if nothing changed recently on either end. If however something did change, for example a network difference, or MQ was upgraded to 8.0.0.8 on the remote side, then this setting just might solve your problem.
In the channel status output two values are interesting:
NETTIME(2789746,3087573)
XQTIME(215757414,214033427)
NETTIME means that based on recent activity it took 2.7 seconds to receive a response from the RCVR channel, over a longer period of time it took 3.1 seconds to receive a response from the RCVR channel. Can you compare this to a TCP ping from the sender channel server to the receive channel server, 2.7 seconds for a response over the network seems excessive. In the presentation Keeping MQ Channels Up and Running given at Capitalware's MQ Technical Conference v2.0.1.4, Paul Clarke who used to work for IBM states "NETTIME only measures network time, and does not include
the MQCMIT for example".
XQTIME means that based on recent activity and over a longer period of time it took ~215 seconds for a message on the XMITQ to be picked up by the SDR channel to be sent.
See below for how IBM documents these:
NETTIME
Amount of time, displayed in microseconds, to send a request to the remote end of the channel and receive a response. This time only measures the network time for such an operation. Two values are displayed:
A value based on recent activity over a short period.
A value based on activity over a longer period.
XQTIME
The time, in microseconds, that messages remained on the transmission queue before being retrieved. The time is measured from when the message is put onto the transmission queue until it is retrieved to be sent on the channel and, therefore, includes any interval caused by a delay in the putting application.
Two values are displayed:
A value based on recent activity over a short period.
A value based on activity over a longer period.
Information on the BATCHSZ channel parameter can be found in the IBM MQ v8.0 Knowledge Center page Reference>Configuration reference>Channel attributes>Channel attributes in alphabetical order>Batch size (BATCHSZ). I have quoted it and highlighted a few areas in bold.
This attribute is the maximum number of messages to be sent before a sync point is taken.
The batch size does not affect the way the channel transfers messages; messages are always transferred individually, but are committed or backed out as a batch.
To improve performance, you can set a batch size to define the maximum number of messages to be transferred between two sync points. The batch size to be used is negotiated when a channel starts, and the lower of the two channel definitions is taken. On some implementations, the batch size is calculated from the lowest of the two channel definitions and the two queue manager MAXUMSGS values. The actual size of a batch can be less; for example, a batch completes when there are no messages left on the transmission queue or the batch interval expires.
A large value for the batch size increases throughput, but recovery times are increased because there are more messages to back out and send again. The default BATCHSZ is 50, and you are advised to try that value first. You might choose a lower value for BATCHSZ if your communications are unreliable, making the need to recover more likely.
This attribute is valid for channel types of:
Sender
Server
Receiver
Requester
Cluster sender
Cluster receiver
Follow up questions:
Are the messages that are PUT to this XMITQ persistent?
Answer: Yes, in our PROD env all messages are pesistent.
Have you had a recent increase in volume going to this XMITQ?
Answer: No, we use a monitoring tools, we extracted a report that show very similar message rate during the period. The same rate over the last 2 weeks.
Do the putting applications set MQPMO_SYNCPOINT and then commit after 1 or more messages are PUT to the queue?
Answer: I will check with the application team.
A couple of things..
You have XBATCHSZ(1,1) so your recent batch size is 1 message per batch.
Total messages 23505 batches 403, so an average of 58 messages per batch. If your recent batch size is 1, then you must have had some larger (100?) batch sizes
XQTIME 191225 is number of microseconds messages were on the xmit queue before being sent. This is 0.1 second!
Nettime 101563 microseconds. This is a long time ( 0.1 seconds) 10,000 would be a good value. Compare this with a "TCP PING"
BUFSSENT 23525 is similar to number of messages - so message size is typically under 32K. Bytessent. messages gives 2286 so small messages.
Things to check
The queue at the remote end. Has it filled up? This would cause the sender queue to get more messages
The nettime seems very long. Compare this with TCP Ping. Nettime can include slow IO at the remote end - or a queue full at the remote end
XQTIME is high. This could be caused by sending applications not committing, or slow disk IO
I wrote "Why is my xmit queue filling up" in this blog
*Search for the title
have a read.
Capture these metrics over a day and see if they are typical
regards
Colin Paice
We are migrating from IBM MQ to Amazon MQ, at least we would like to do so. The problem is Amazon MQ is having bad performance when using JMS producer to put a large message on a queue compared to IBM MQ.
All messages are persistent and the system is High Available regarding IBM MQ, and Amazon MQ is multi AZ.
If we put this size of XML files to IBM MQ (2 cpu and 8GB RAM HA instance) we have this performance:
256 KB = 15ms
4,6 MB = 125ms
9,3 MB = 141ms
18,7 MB = 218ms
37,4 MB = 628ms
74,8 MB = 1463ms
If we put the same files on Amazon MQ (mq.m5.2xlarge = 8 CPU and 32 GB RAM) or ActiveMQ we have this performance:
256 KB = 967ms
4,6 MB = 1024ms
9,3 MB = 1828ms
18,7 MB = 3550ms
37,4 MB = 8900ms
74,8 MB = 14405ms
What we also see is that IBM MQ has equal response times for sending a message to a queue and getting a message from a queue, while Amazon MQ is real fast in getting a message (e.g. just takes 1 ms), but very slow on sending.
On Amazon MQ we use the OpenWire protocol. We use this config in Terraform style:
resource "aws_mq_broker" "default" {
broker_name = "bernardamazonmqtest"
deployment_mode = "ACTIVE_STANDBY_MULTI_AZ"
engine_type = "ActiveMQ
engine_version = "5.15.10"
host_instance_type = "mq.m5.2xlarge"
auto_minor_version_upgrade = "false"
apply_immediately = "false"
publicly_accessible = "false"
security_groups = [aws_security_group.pittensbSG-allow-mq-external.id]
subnet_ids = [aws_subnet.pittensbSN-public-1.id, aws_subnet.pittensbSN-public-3.id]
logs {
general = "true"
audit = "true"
}
We use Java 8 with JMS ActiveMQ library via POM (Maven):
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId>
<artifactId>activemq-client</artifactId>
<version>5.15.8</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.activemq</groupId>
<artifactId>activemq-pool</artifactId>
<version>5.15.8</version>
</dependency>
In JMS we have this Java code:
private ActiveMQConnectionFactory mqConnectionFactory;
private PooledConnectionFactory mqPooledConnectionFactory;
private Connection connection;
private Session session;
private MessageProducer producer;
private TextMessage textMessage;
private Queue queue;
this.mqConnectionFactory = new ActiveMQConnectionFactory();
this.mqPooledConnectionFactory = new PooledConnectionFactory();
this.mqPooledConnectionFactory.setConnectionFactory(this.mqConnectionFactory);
this.mqConnectionFactory.setBrokerURL("ssl://tag-1.mq.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com:61617");
this.mqPooledConnectionFactory.setMaxConnections(10);
this.connection = mqPooledConnectionFactory.createConnection());
this.connection.start();
this.session = this.connection.createSession(false, Session.AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE);
this.session.createQueue("ExampleQueue");
this.producer = this.session.createProducer(this.queue);
long startTimeSchrijf = 0;
startTimeWrite= System.currentTimeMillis();
producer.send("XMLFile.xml"); // here we send the files
logger.debug("EXPORTTIJD_PUT - Put to queue takes: " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTimeWrite));
// close session, producer and connection after 10 cycles
We also have run the performance test as a Single Instance AmazonMQ. But same results.
We have also run the performance test with a mq.m5.4xlarge (16 cpu, 96 GB RAM) engine but still no improvement of the bad performance.
Performance test configuration:
We first push the messages(XML files) according above one by one to a queue. We do that 5 times. After 5 times we read those messages(XML files) from the queue. We call this 1 cycle.
We run 10 cycles one after another, so in total we have pushed 300 files to the queue and we have getted 300 files from the queue.
We run 3 tests in parallel: One from AWS Region Londen, one from AWS Region Frankfurt in a different VPC and 1 from Frankfurt in the same VPC as the Amazon MQ broker and in the same subnet. Alle clients run on an EC2 instance: m4.xlarge.
If we run a test with only one VPC for example only the local VPC which is in the same subnet as the AmazonMQ broker the performance improves and we have these results:
256 KB = 72ms
4,6 MB = 381ms
9,3 MB = 980ms
18,7 MB = 2117ms
37,4 MB = 3985ms
74,8 MB = 7781ms
The client and server are in the same subnet, so we have nothing to do with firewalling etc.
Maybe somebody can tell me what is wrong, and why we have such a terrible performance with Amazon MQ or ActiveMQ?
extra info:
Response times are measured in the JMS Java app with Java starttime just before the producer.send('XML') and just endtime just after the producer.send('XML'). Difference is the recorded time. Times are average times over 300 calls.
IBM MQ server is located in our datacenter, and client app is running at a server in the same datacenter.
extra info test:
The jms app starts create connectionFactory queues sessions. Then it uploads the files to MQ 1 by 1. This is a cycle, then it run this cycle 10 times in a for lus without opening or closing sessions queues or connectionfactorys. Then all 60 messages are read from queue and written to files on the local drive. Then it closes the connection factory and session and producer/consumer. This is one batch.
Then we run 5 batches. So between the batches connectionFactory, queue, session are recreated.
In response to Sam:
When I also execute the test with the same size of files like you did Sam I approach the same response times, I set the persistence mode also to false value between () :
500 KB = 30ms (6ms)
1 MB = 50ms (13ms)
2 MB = 100ms (24ms)
I removed the connection pooling and I set
concurrentStoreAndDispatchQueues="false"
The system I have used broker: mq.m5.2xlarge and client: m4.xlarge.
But if I test with bigger files, this are the response times:
256 KB = 72ms
4,6 MB = 381ms
9,3 MB = 980ms
18,7 MB = 2117ms
37,4 MB = 3985ms
74,8 MB = 7781ms
I am having a very simple requirement. I have a system what puts messages on a queue and the messages are get from the queue by another system, sometimes at the same time sometimes not, sometimes there are 20 or 30 messages on the system before they get unloaded. Thats why I need a queue and messages must be persistent and it must be a Java JMS implementation.
I think Amazon MQ might be a solution for small files but for big files it is not. I think we have to use IBM MQ for this case which has better performance. But one important thing: I tested IBM MQ only on premis in our LAN. We tried to test IBM MQ on Amazon but we didn't succeed yet.
I tried to reproduce the scenario you were testing. When I ran a JMS client in the same VPC as the AmazonMQ broker for mq.m5.4xlarge broker with an Active and Standby instance, I see the following roundtrip latencies - measuring the moment from which a producer sends a message to the moment when consumer receives the message.
2MB - 50ms
1MB - 31ms
500KB - 15ms
My code just created a connection and a session. I did not use a PooledConnectionFactory (stating this as a matter of fact, not saying/suspecting that's the cause). Also it is better to strip down the code to bare minimum in order to establish a baseline and remove noise when doing performance testing. That way, when you introduce additional code, you can easily see if the new code introduced a performance issue. I used the default broker configuration.
In ActiveMQ, there is a concept of Fast Producer and Fast Consumer, this means, if consumer can process the messages at the same rate as the Producer, the broker transfers the message from producer to consumer via memory and then it writes the message to disk. This is the default behavior and is controlled by a broker configuration setting named concurrentStoreAndDispatch which is true (default)
If consumer is unable to keep up with producer, and thus becomes a "slow" consumer and with the concurrentStoreAndDispatch flag set to true, you take a performance hit.
ActiveMQ provides advisory topics which you can subscribe to detect slow consumers. If in fact, you detected that the consumer is slower than the producer, it is better to set concurrentStoreAndDispatch flag to false to get better performance.
I don't get any response.
I think its because there is no solution for this performance problem. Amazon MQ is a cloud service and mabye thats the reason why performance is this bad.
IBM MQ is a different architecture, and it is on premise.
I have to investigate the performance of ActiveMQ some more before I can tell what exactly the reason is for this problem.
We are testing the capacity of a Mail relay based on RHEL 7.6.
We are observing issues when sending an important number of msgs (e.g.: ~1000 msgs in 60 seconds).
While we have sent all the msgs and the recipient has received all the msgs, logs are missing in the /var/log/maillog_rfc5424.
We have the following message in the /var/log/messages:
rsyslogd: imjournal: XYZ messages lost due to rate-limiting
We adapted the /etc/rsyslog.conf with the following settings but without effect:
$SystemLogRateLimitInterval 0 # turn off rate limit
$SystemLogRateLimitBurst 0 # turn rate limit off
Any ideas ?
The error is from imjournal, but your configuration settings are for imuxsock.
According to the rsyslog configuration page you need to set
$imjournalRatelimitInterval 0
$imjournalRatelimitBurst 0
Note that for very high message rates you might like to change to imuxsock, as it says:
this module may be notably slower than when using imuxsock. The journal provides imuxsock with a copy of all “classical” syslog messages, however, it does not provide structured data. Only if that structured data is needed, imjournal must be used. Otherwise, imjournal may simply be replaced by imuxsock, and we highly suggest doing so.
RocketMQ version: 3.2.6
Our cluster:
2 NameServer
6 Master Broker
6 Slave Broker
We have a lot of consumers(about 100) consume message from broker ,
We use command to monitor consume diff command:
/data/alibaba-rocketmq/bin/mqadmin consumerProgress -n XXX:XX The
diff is negative (eg: -898232391123,-8323231872) in only one
broker,other brokers is healthy.
A lot of broker warn log below
a lot of errors : Consumer request offset is much bigger than max offset
a lot of errors : connection reset frequently
finally，I found the answer in github
https://github.com/alibaba/RocketMQ/releases
It's a bug and fixed in version 3.4.6. That's ok.
1.My namenode log always prints error log java.io.IOException: Requested data length 113675682 is longer than maximum configured RPC length 67108864. RPC came from 172.16.xxx.xxx
And datanode prints Unsuccessfully sent block report 0x706cd6d00df0effe, containing 1 storage report(s), of which we sent 0. The reports had 9016550 total blocks and used 0 RPC(s). This took 1734 msec to generate and 252 msecs for RPC and NN processing. Got back no commands
2.I set ipc.maximum.data.length to 134217728 and solved the problem,But unfortunately,i find after set length,my hdfs client often can't to write data,but just take a few minutes every time.Then i find the namenode throw a new exception,when client can't write,DatanodeProtocol.blockReport from 172.16.xxx.xxx:43410 Call#30074227 Retry#0
java.lang.IllegalStateException: com.google.protobuf.InvalidProtocolBufferException: Protocol message was too large. May be malicious. Use CodedInputStream.setSizeLimit() to increase the size limit.
like Referring HDFS-5153,it says The NameSystem write lock is held during this time.`
I must hacking protobuf jar and set the limit?
EDIT:
I find a Same question,but no solution