Windows Mobile Support

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, 4 April 2013

(Part 3) Testing the limits of Windows Azure Service Bus

Posted on 05:03 by Unknown
In the latest post series about the limits of Windows Azure Service Bus, we saw that is the maximum number of messages that we can process through a single topic (1.000.000 messages every 30 minutes) and what kind of worker role we should use to process this messages in the optimum way (Medium size).
In this post I will try to respond to another question that is normal to appear when we are using a cloud solution.
Can I scale the number of instances that consume messages from the topic?
Environment:
Each message that was added to Service Bus was pretty small. We had around 100 characters in UTF7 and 3 properties added to each BrokeredMessage.
We run the tests with one; two and three subscribers with different filter rules and the result were similar.
Each message that is received from Service Bus required a custom action to be executed. This action is pretty complicated and consumes CPU power. Also the logic requires to access remote services (that are stored in the same data-center).
For all this tests we used a medium size worker role.
Action:
In the first phase we pushed on the topic 100.000 messages and measure how long it takes to process all the available messages. We tried to identify what is the best number of instances that we can have in parallel from the perspective of costs and time.
The next phase was to see detect what is the optimum number of messages that can be processed using the given number of instances that we found in the first phase.
Results:
Phase 1: We tried to process 100.000 of messages with different number of worker roles instances. The size of all instances was Medium. The results of these tests were:
  • 1 instance – 18 minutes and 10 seconds
  • 2 instance – 11 minutes and 40 seconds
  • 3 instance – 7 minutes and 15 seconds
  • 4 instance – 4 minutes and 15 seconds
  • 5 instance – 3 minutes and 20 seconds
  • 6 instance – 2 minutes and 59 seconds
  • 7 instance – 2 minutes and 27 seconds
  • 8 instance – 2 minutes and 5 seconds
We can observe that at while scaling up, the time decrease with around 30% percent until we reach 4-5 instances, when the time start to decrease more slowly. This happens because when a topic is intensive used, the response time increase. Don’t expect to have the same latency when the topic is hit 10 times per seconds or 1000 per seconds.
When calculating the price, we should take into account to different prices. The first price represents the cost of running N instances for the period of time when messages from topic are processed. The second price is the obsolete price, which represents the cost of running N instances for the minimum period of time – in the case of Windows Azure the smallest time unit is hour.
Taking all this things into account, we observed that 4 instance of medium size can process our messages in the shortest period of time with the best costs.
Having this “magic” number of instances and the size of them we made the next step. We measure how long it takes for our application that is deployed on 4 worker roles with medium size to process different number of messages. The results of this test were:
  • 100.000 messages – 4 minutes
  • 200.000 messages – 8 minutes
  • 300.000 messages – 11 minutes
  • 500.000 messages – 19 minutes
  • 1.000.000 messages – 34 minutes
  • 3.000.000 messages – 2 hours and 32 minutes
The results were pretty interesting. The performance is also the same until we reach a critical point. Do you remember the first post when I mentioned that we observe that 1.000.000 messages per 30 minutes seems to be the maximum number of messages that we can process in an optimum way?
This is the point when the performance starts to go down. We can observe that the difference between processing 1.000.000 messages and 3.000.000 messages is pretty big. From the time perspective the last test requested almost 4.5x more time.
At the end of the tests we decided to use only one worker role of medium size to see how long it takes to process different number of messages. The time results were:
  • 100.000 messages – 18 minutes
  • 200.000 messages – 32 minutes
  • 300.000 messages – 51 minutes
  • 500.000 messages – 1 hour and 31 minutes
  • 1.000.000 messages – 2 hour and 58 minutes
What I liked at this result it was how the duration increased. The duration time increases almost like the number of messages.
Conclusion
For our business problems we observed that having 4 worker roles of medium size of the same topic is the best configuration that we can have from time and costs perspective. This result is extremely important because we know where is the point when we need to scale in a different way.
In the next post related to this topic we will talked about costs.
Remarks: Usually all the duration values are rounded to minutes (without seconds and milliseconds). This does not mean that we don’t have these values.

Part 4
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in Azure, service bus, Windows Azure | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Service Bus Topic - Automatic forward messages from a subscription to a topic
    Windows Azure Service Bus Topic is a service that enables us to distribute the same messages to different consumers without having to know e...
  • Patterns in Windows Azure Service Bus - Message Splitter Pattern
    In one of my post about Service Bus Topics from Windows Azure I told you that I will write about a post that describe how we can design an a...
  • CDN is not the only solution to improve the page speed - Reverse Caching Proxy
    I heard more and more often think like this: “If your website is to slow, you should use a CDN.” Great, CDN is THE solution for any kind of ...
  • E-Learning Vendors Attempt to Morph Mobile
    The sign should read: " Don't touch! Wet Paint !" I had a good chuckle today after receiving my latest emailed copy of the eLe...
  • Content Types - Level 6: Rich Media
    Level 6: Rich Media NOTE: This is part 7 of 7 and the conclusion of this continuing series; please see earlier posts for more background inf...
  • Publishing our CellCast Widget for iPad
    The rush has been on this week as our development team worked to design a new version of our CellCast Widget specifically for Apple's up...
  • Content Types - Level 5: Courseware
    Level 5: Content and Courseware NOTE: This is part 6 of 7 in a continuing series; please see earlier posts for more background information. ...
  • SQL - UNION and UNION ALL
    I think that all of us used until now UNION in a SQLstatement. Using this operator we can combine the result of 2 queries. For example we wa...
  • Cum sa salvezi un stream direct intr-un fisier
    Cred ca este a 2-a oara când întâlnesc aceasta cerința in decurs de câteva săptămâni. Se da un stream și o locație unde trebuie salvat, se c...
  • Content Types - Level 4: Reference
    Level 4: Reference Materials & Static Content NOTE: This is part 5 of 7 in a continuing series; please see earlier posts for more backgr...

Categories

  • .NET
  • .NET nice to have
  • #if DEBUG
  • 15 iunie 2011
  • 15 octombrie 2011
  • 2011
  • abstracta
  • action
  • adaugare
  • ajax
  • Amsterdam
  • Android
  • aplicatii
  • App Fabric
  • Apple iSlate
  • array
  • as
  • ASP.NET
  • AsReadOnly
  • Assembly comun
  • async
  • Asynchronous programming
  • asyncron
  • Autofac
  • AutoMapper
  • az
  • Azure
  • Azure AppFabric Cache
  • Azure backup solution
  • Azure Storage Explorer
  • azure. cloud
  • backup
  • BCP utility
  • bing maps v7
  • BitArray
  • BlackBerry
  • blob
  • BlobContainerPublicAccessType
  • breakpoint
  • bucuresti
  • C#
  • cache
  • CallerMemberName
  • CellCast
  • Certificate
  • CES
  • change
  • ChannelFactory
  • clasa
  • classinitialize
  • clean code
  • click event
  • close
  • Cloud
  • Cluj
  • cluj-napoca
  • Code contracts
  • code retrat
  • codecamp
  • CollectionAssert
  • Compact Edition
  • compara
  • Comparer T .Default
  • CompareTo
  • comparison
  • comunitate
  • concurs
  • Conditional attribute
  • configurare
  • connection string
  • container
  • content type
  • control
  • Convert
  • convertAll
  • convertor
  • cross platform
  • CRUD
  • css
  • custom properties
  • custom request
  • DACPAC
  • Daniel Andres
  • data sync service
  • database
  • date time
  • datetime
  • debug
  • default
  • delegate
  • dependency injection
  • deploy
  • DeploymentItem
  • design patterns
  • Dev de Amsterdam
  • development stoage
  • dictionary
  • diferente
  • digging
  • director
  • Directory.Exist
  • disable
  • dispatcher
  • dispose
  • dropdown
  • dynamic
  • EF
  • email
  • encoding
  • entity framework
  • enum
  • enumerable
  • Environment.NewLine
  • error
  • error 404
  • error handling
  • eveniment
  • event
  • ews
  • excel
  • exception
  • exchange
  • exita
  • explicit
  • export
  • extension
  • field
  • File.Exist
  • finalize
  • fire and forget
  • Fluent interface pattern
  • format
  • func
  • GC.SuppressFinalize
  • generic
  • getdirectoryname
  • globalization
  • gmail
  • hackathon
  • Hadoop
  • handle
  • HTML
  • html 5
  • Html.ActionLink
  • http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
  • HttpModule
  • IComparable
  • IE
  • ienumerable
  • IIS
  • image
  • implicit
  • import
  • int
  • internationalization
  • Internet Explorer
  • interop
  • Ioc
  • IP Filter
  • iPhone
  • iQuest
  • IStructuralEquatable
  • ITCamp
  • itspark
  • java script
  • javascript
  • July 2012
  • KeyedByTypeCollection
  • KeyNotFoundException
  • Kinect SDK
  • lambda expression
  • LightSwitch Microsoft Silverlight
  • linq
  • list
  • lista
  • lista servicii
  • liste
  • Live Connect
  • Live ID
  • load
  • localization
  • lock
  • m-learning
  • MAC
  • Mango
  • map
  • mapare
  • mapare propietati
  • messagequeue
  • meta properties
  • method
  • MethodImpl
  • Metro App
  • Microsoft
  • Microsoft Sync Framework
  • mlearning
  • mlearning devices
  • Mobile Apps
  • mobile in the cloud
  • mobile learning
  • mobile services
  • Mobile Web
  • mongoDb
  • monitorizare
  • msmq
  • multitasking
  • MVC
  • MVC 3
  • MVVM
  • namespace
  • nextpartitionkey
  • nextrowkey
  • Ninject
  • nivel acces
  • no result
  • normalize
  • nosql
  • null expcetion
  • null object pattern
  • NullReferenceException
  • OAuth API
  • office
  • offline
  • Open ID
  • openhackeu2011
  • operations
  • operator
  • optimization
  • option
  • outputcache
  • OutputCacheProvider
  • override
  • paginare
  • pagination
  • path
  • persistare
  • Portable Library tool
  • Post event – CodeCamp Cluj-Napoca
  • predicate
  • predictions
  • prezentare
  • process
  • proiect
  • property
  • propietati
  • query
  • ReadOnlyCollection
  • ReadOnlyDictionary
  • referinta
  • reflection
  • remote
  • reply command
  • request
  • request response
  • resouce
  • REST
  • REST Client
  • RESTSharp
  • ronua
  • rss
  • rulare
  • salvare in fisier
  • sc
  • schimbare timp
  • select
  • select nodes
  • send
  • serializare
  • serialization
  • Server.Transfer. Resposen.Redirect
  • service bus
  • ServiceBase
  • servicecontroller
  • sesiune
  • session
  • Session_End
  • Session_Start
  • setup
  • Sibiu
  • signalR
  • Silverlight
  • sincronizare
  • Single Responsibility Principle
  • SkyDrive
  • skype
  • smartphones
  • smtp
  • Snapguide
  • sniffer
  • socket
  • solid
  • spec#
  • sql
  • Sql Azure
  • SQL CE
  • sql server 2008 RC
  • SRP
  • startuptype
  • stateful
  • stateless
  • static
  • stergere
  • store
  • store procedure
  • stream
  • string
  • string.join
  • struct
  • StructuralEqualityComparer
  • submit
  • switch
  • Symbian
  • Synchronized
  • system
  • tabele
  • table
  • techEd 2012
  • tempdata
  • test
  • testcleanup
  • testinitialize
  • testmethod
  • thread
  • timer
  • ToLower
  • tool
  • tostring
  • Total Cost Calculator
  • trace ASP.NET
  • transcoding
  • tuplu
  • tutorial
  • TWmLearning
  • type
  • unit test
  • unittest
  • UrlParameter.Optional
  • Validate
  • validation
  • verificare
  • video
  • view
  • ViewBag
  • virtual
  • visual studio
  • VM role
  • Vunvulea Radu
  • wallpaper
  • WCF
  • WebBrower
  • WebRequest
  • where clause
  • Windows
  • windows 8
  • Windows Azure
  • Windows Azure Service Management CmdLets
  • windows live messenger
  • Windows Mobile
  • Windows Phone
  • windows service
  • windows store application
  • Windows Task
  • WinRT
  • word
  • workaround
  • XBox
  • xml
  • xmlns
  • XNA
  • xpath
  • YMesseger
  • Yonder
  • Zip

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (139)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (7)
    • ►  July (8)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (12)
    • ▼  April (17)
      • Event-Driven message consumtion (aka pump model) ...
      • [Post-Event] Windows Azure Boot Camp in Cluj-Napoca
      • [Post-Event] AISEC Cluj-Napoca, NoSQL
      • Coding Stories III - JavaScript and Syntactic sugar
      • Coding Stories || - John and Gigel
      • WCF and "Error in deserializing body of reply mes...
      • Configuration files horror
      • Steam.CopyTo - Performance problems
      • Asynchronous Master Class, May 18-19, Cluj-Napoca
      • (Part 4) Testing the limits of Windows Azure Servi...
      • [Post-Event] AISEC Cluj-Napoca, Cloud and Windows ...
      • How to NOT do Web Services versioning (WCF)
      • ITCamp 2013, May 23-24
      • How to write unit-tests for async methods
      • Windows Azure Bootcamp at Cluj-Napoca, 27 April 2013
      • Coding Stories
      • (Part 3) Testing the limits of Windows Azure Servi...
    • ►  March (16)
    • ►  February (9)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2012 (251)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (19)
    • ►  October (26)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (35)
    • ►  July (28)
    • ►  June (27)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (17)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (15)
  • ►  2011 (127)
    • ►  December (11)
    • ►  November (20)
    • ►  October (8)
    • ►  September (8)
    • ►  August (8)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (8)
    • ►  April (9)
    • ►  March (14)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2010 (26)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (14)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile