JMS Reducing consume speed by putting a blocking operation inside onMessage of listener
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
Scenario
We are working on a JMS point-to-point setup. Here the producer is much faster than the consumer. On the consumer end, we have a Listener setup, which fires onMessage() in it whenever a record is available on the broker.
We spawn threads for each message received in the onMessage(). Currently, I have a thread pool of maxpoolsize=2 with blocking queue size of 2000. In certain scenarios, no. of messages consumed overpowers the above configuration and the messages start getting rejected due to no space available in the blocking queue.
For this I plan to add a blocking operation inside onMessage() which will prevent consumption of new messages.e.g. snippet:
public void onMessage(Message message) {
while( ! spaceAvailableInPoolQueue());//Wait here
//Actual work
}
As per my understanding, the consumer fetches messages from the prefetch buffer. For each(or some) of the messages in this buffer, an event is fired and a thread is spawned which will trigger onMessage() inside the listener.
Question
Will this blocking operation timeout the underlying threads that send the data from the broker?
Or will the local thread that is waiting for completion of onMessage() at the consumer end timeout?
Overall, is it the correct approach to do so?
multithreading jms message-queue event-listener
asked Nov 22 '18 at 13:13
Aditya GuptaAditya Gupta
91811122
add a comment |
Scenario
We are working on a JMS point-to-point setup. Here the producer is much faster than the consumer. On the consumer end, we have a Listener setup, which fires onMessage() in it whenever a record is available on the broker.
We spawn threads for each message received in the onMessage(). Currently, I have a thread pool of maxpoolsize=2 with blocking queue size of 2000. In certain scenarios, no. of messages consumed overpowers the above configuration and the messages start getting rejected due to no space available in the blocking queue.
For this I plan to add a blocking operation inside onMessage() which will prevent consumption of new messages.e.g. snippet:
public void onMessage(Message message) {
while( ! spaceAvailableInPoolQueue());//Wait here
//Actual work
}
As per my understanding, the consumer fetches messages from the prefetch buffer. For each(or some) of the messages in this buffer, an event is fired and a thread is spawned which will trigger onMessage() inside the listener.
Question
Will this blocking operation timeout the underlying threads that send the data from the broker?
Or will the local thread that is waiting for completion of onMessage() at the consumer end timeout?
Overall, is it the correct approach to do so?
multithreading jms message-queue event-listener
asked Nov 22 '18 at 13:13
Aditya GuptaAditya Gupta
91811122
add a comment |
Scenario
We are working on a JMS point-to-point setup. Here the producer is much faster than the consumer. On the consumer end, we have a Listener setup, which fires onMessage() in it whenever a record is available on the broker.
We spawn threads for each message received in the onMessage(). Currently, I have a thread pool of maxpoolsize=2 with blocking queue size of 2000. In certain scenarios, no. of messages consumed overpowers the above configuration and the messages start getting rejected due to no space available in the blocking queue.
For this I plan to add a blocking operation inside onMessage() which will prevent consumption of new messages.e.g. snippet:
public void onMessage(Message message) {
while( ! spaceAvailableInPoolQueue());//Wait here
//Actual work
}
As per my understanding, the consumer fetches messages from the prefetch buffer. For each(or some) of the messages in this buffer, an event is fired and a thread is spawned which will trigger onMessage() inside the listener.
Question
Will this blocking operation timeout the underlying threads that send the data from the broker?
Or will the local thread that is waiting for completion of onMessage() at the consumer end timeout?
Overall, is it the correct approach to do so?
multithreading jms message-queue event-listener
asked Nov 22 '18 at 13:13
Aditya GuptaAditya Gupta
91811122
Scenario
We are working on a JMS point-to-point setup. Here the producer is much faster than the consumer. On the consumer end, we have a Listener setup, which fires onMessage() in it whenever a record is available on the broker.
We spawn threads for each message received in the onMessage(). Currently, I have a thread pool of maxpoolsize=2 with blocking queue size of 2000. In certain scenarios, no. of messages consumed overpowers the above configuration and the messages start getting rejected due to no space available in the blocking queue.
For this I plan to add a blocking operation inside onMessage() which will prevent consumption of new messages.e.g. snippet:
public void onMessage(Message message) {
while( ! spaceAvailableInPoolQueue());//Wait here
//Actual work
}
As per my understanding, the consumer fetches messages from the prefetch buffer. For each(or some) of the messages in this buffer, an event is fired and a thread is spawned which will trigger onMessage() inside the listener.
Question
Will this blocking operation timeout the underlying threads that send the data from the broker?
Or will the local thread that is waiting for completion of onMessage() at the consumer end timeout?
Overall, is it the correct approach to do so?
multithreading jms message-queue event-listener
multithreading jms message-queue event-listener
asked Nov 22 '18 at 13:13
Aditya GuptaAditya Gupta
91811122
asked Nov 22 '18 at 13:13
Aditya GuptaAditya Gupta
91811122
asked Nov 22 '18 at 13:13
Aditya GuptaAditya Gupta
91811122
asked Nov 22 '18 at 13:13
Aditya GuptaAditya Gupta
91811122
asked Nov 22 '18 at 13:13
Aditya GuptaAditya Gupta
91811122
91811122
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53431822%2fjms-reducing-consume-speed-by-putting-a-blocking-operation-inside-onmessage-of-l%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53431822%2fjms-reducing-consume-speed-by-putting-a-blocking-operation-inside-onmessage-of-l%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
