business rules - Page 482

Are we queueing and serializing properly?

- by insta

We process messages through a variety of services (one message will touch probably 9 services before it's done, each doing a specific IO-related function). Right now we have a combination of the worst-case (XML data contract serialization) and best-case (in-memory MSMQ) for performance. The nature of the message means that our serialized data ends up about 12-15 kilobytes, and we process about 4 million messages per week. Persistent messages in MSMQ were too slow for us, and as the data grows we are feeling the pressure from MSMQ's memory-mapped files. The server is at 16GB of memory usage and growing, just for queueing. Performance also suffers when the memory usage is high, as the machine starts swapping. We're already doing the MSMQ self-cleanup behavior. I feel like there's a part we're doing wrong here. I tried using RavenDB to persist the messages and just queueing an identifier, but the performance there was very slow (1000 messages per minute, at best). I'm not sure if that's a result of using the development version or what, but we definitely need a higher throughput[1]. The concept worked very well in theory but performance was not up to the task. The usage pattern has one service acting as a router, which does all reads. The other services will attach information based on their 3rd party hook, and forward back to the router. Most objects are touched 9-12 times, although about 10% are forced to loop around in this system for awhile until the 3rd parties respond appropriately. The services right now account for this and have appropriate sleeping behaviors, as we utilize the priority field of the message for this reason. So, my question, is what is an ideal stack for message passing between discrete-but-LAN'ed machines in a C#/Windows environment? I would normally start with BinaryFormatter instead of XML serialization, but that's a rabbit hole if a better way is to offload serialization to a document store. Hence, my question. [1]: The nature of our business means the sooner we process messages, the more money we make. We've empirically proven that processing a message later in the week means we are less likely to make that money. While performance of "1000 per minute" sounds plenty fast, we really need that number upwards of 10k/minute. Just because I'm giving numbers in messages per week doesn't mean we have a whole week to process those messages.

Search Results

Search found 14407 results on 577 pages for 'business rules'.

Page 482/577 | < Previous Page | 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 | Next Page >

- by insta

- by Maria Sandu

- by sigil

- by Vain Fellowman

- by Davek804

- by tichien

- by Steve He(???)

- by Steve He(???)

- by ???02

- by grepsedawk

- by Myles J

- by meowsqueak

- by Kreychek

- by Pentland_web

- by TaMeR

- by Matthew

- by DVK

- by Malcolm Frexner

- by Matt H

- by raulsan

- by Frank C.

- by Neuquino

- by Jeff D

- by Diep-Vriezer

- by AlexT

< Previous Page | 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 | Next Page >