is creating a connection in RabbtiMQ .net client an expensive operation?
We have a Web application that publishes message to the RMQ, and currently we create and close the connection on every publish.
Yes, creating connection is expensive. Why are you creating and closing connection to rabbit anyway after publish?
I would suggest create rabbit connection once, then close it whenever you need to.
If you maintained a single connection it would be faster to send messages, as you would only need one operation to send a message. Opening a connection each time uses io resources so is bound to be a little slower.
Related
Redisson client when doing a put or set operation always gets a connection first. Is there a way to reuse the same connection and reduce the cost of operations
Redisson client when doing a put or set operation always gets a connection first
It uses pooled connections. Never creates it each time. During first operation codec may require warmup. You can try to use simple StringCodec.
I experimented with jedis client that reuses the same connection. I am using that for now.
A long-running application uses the MS C OBDC API to create and use SQL connections to an Oracle DB. The application was originally designed to establish an ODBC connection at startup and keep that connection indefinitely as the application runs, potentially for weeks or months.
We're seeing very infrequent cases where a connection suddenly dies and I wondered if that's because we're using them wrong, or if it's considered OK to hold a connection like this. Can anyone point me to some definitive information on the subject?
I'm not sure there's definitive information regarding this, but with long-running programs you always have to be prepared for this kind of incidents, they just happen (and not only with db connections but also with sockets that remain open for extended periods). I have no experience with Oracle, but I have a very similar setup with Informix, and this is (in pseudocode) what we do
while (programissupposedtorun) {
opendb();
do {
youractivities();
} while(dbisok);
closedbandcleanup();
}
As long as you are able to correctly detect that the connection died and are able to resume processing without losing data you should be OK.
I'm not familiar with ODBC but such use cases are best handled with a connection pool. Your application can simply request a connection from the pool when it has some work and release it as soon as its done -- the pool will take care of actually (re)connecting to the database.
A quick search for ODBC connection pooling brought this up: Driver Manager Connection Pooling
As the title said, What is their difference and how to make a choice?
I wonder is there something same as each other?
If I want to make a keep-alive connection? That is said once I connect to activemq server,
I can using the connection to send/receive message whenever I want. I think I can call it
daemonProducer or daemonConsumer. Can activemq implement this?
The ActiveMQConnectionFactory creates ActiveMQ Connections. The PooledConnectionFactory pools Connections. If you only need to create one Connection and keep it around for a long time you don't need to pool. If you tend to create many Connection instances over time then Pooling is better as connecting is a heavy operation and can be a performance bottleneck.
Quick overview of our topology:
Web sites sending commands to an nServiceBus server, which accepts the commands and then publishes the correct pub/sub events. This service also has message handlers that can do some process against the DB in response to the command, for instance:
1 user registers on web site
2 web site sends nServicebus command to nServicebus service on another server.
3 nServicebus server has a handler for that specific type of command, which logs something to the database and sends a welcome email
Since instituting this architecture we started to get deadlocks on the DB. I have traced it down to MSDTC on the database server. If I turn that service OFF on the database server nServicebus starts throwing up errors, which to me shows that nServiceBus has been enlisting the DB update in the transaction.
I don't wish this to happen, I want to handle the DB failing myself, I only want the transaction to ensure the message is delivered to my nServicebus proxy service. I don't want a transaction from the web all the way through 2 servers to the DB and back.
Any suggestions?
EDIT: this post provides some clues, however I'm not entirely sure it's the proper way to proceed.. NServiceBus - Problem with using TransactionScopeOption.Suppress in message handler
EDIT2: The reason that we want the DB work outside the scope of the transaction is that the intent is to 'asynchronously' process these commands on another server so as not to slow down the web site and/or cause users to wait for these long running aggregation commands. If the DB is within the scope of the transaction, is that blocking execution on the website at the point where the original command is fired to the distributor? Is there a better nServicebus architecture for this scenario? We want the command to fire quickly and return control to the web site so the user can quickly proceed and not have to wait for our longish running DB command, which is updating aggregate counts and sending emails etc.
I wouldn't recommend having the DB work outside the context of the NServiceBus transaction. Instead, try reducing the isolation level of the transactions. This can be done by calling:
.IsolationLevel(System.Transactions.IsolationLevel.ReadCommited)
in the fluent configuration. You'll have to put this after .MsmqTransport() in v2.6. In v3.0 you can put this call almost anywhere.
RESPONSE TO EDIT2:
Just using NServiceBus will achieve your objective of not slowing down the website, regardless of the level of the transactions run on the other server. The use of transactions is to provide a guarantee that messages won't be lost in case of failure and also that you won't have to write your own deduplication logic.
I have NHibernate configured with Fluent NNibernate connecting to a PostgreSQL database.
I have a worker class that takes an ISessionFactory as a constructor parameter and consumes messages from a queue. For each message the worker process calls ISessionFactory.OpenSession() and it does some database processing.
When I add more worker processes the performance of the system remains the same which is odd.
After some more investigation I realized that all worker processes are using a single database connection. For example I would add 8 worker processes but on the database I can see only one database connection.
My understanding is that ISessionFactory.OpenSession() will open a new database connection unless the Connection Pool is full.
So is my understanding wrong or is this and issue with the Postgres NHibernate driver.
OpenSession does not open a database connection until needed, and it closes it (i.e. releases it back into the pool) as soon as possible.
By default the session will keep the connection open for the life time of a transaction and as Diego said, it only opens it when needed.
If you want to manage your own connections you can call
ISessionFactory.OpenSession(myConnection);