Skip to main content

(Part 5) Testing the limits of Windows Azure Service Bus


In the last series of post about testing the limits of Windows Azure Service Bus we saw what is the best configuration for our problem, the best configuration is to have 4 medium instances.
The next question for us is: How we can decrease the time processing?
In our case we saw that from the cost and benefits perspective we reached the limitation on Service Bus. This is around 4 medium instances that are able to process around  1.000.000 messages in 34 minutes. But what we can do if we have 10.000.000 messages that needs to be processed in 1 hour.
We could increase the number of instances, but this will not improve our performance too much. In this moment we use only one topic. This topic, as Service Bus, has its own limitations – we cannot make an undefined number of request per second and expect to have a low latency.
A solution to decrease the number of request is to use batches – we already use them.
Another solution is to scale the topics. In this moment we have only one topic. If we would use 5 topics, than we could have 4 instances that will consume messages for each topic. In this way we could consume 5.000.000 messages in 34 minutes. The downside is from the cost perspective. The costs will increase with a 5X factor.
From the cost perceptive, this would be acceptable because all the instances work at maximum capacity. In the moment when we don’t need any more this instances we could stop them.
The only problem is how we can distribute the messages between different topics.
One solution would be to identify different attributes of our messages and try to group messages based on this attributes. In this way we could distributed the messages on more than one topic. In theory this could be a good solution, but how many times you could group items in an equal way. In real life this cannot be accomplish in normal cases.
What we could do is to create a mechanism that can select what topic to use. For example each producer, at a specific time interval or after he send a specific number of messages, check what is the load on each topic and decide what topic should be used.
In this way we could have a flat distribution of messages over our topics.
In this post we saw how we can scale on horizontal Windows Azure Service Bus. With a good design we should be able to support scaling in all the locations where we expect to have a bottleneck.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...

Can User Technical Profile Influence AI Architecture Decisions?

In the last few days, I ran a small experiment on Devin/Windsurf/Cascade, BMAD, and LLM-based architecture decisions. The initial concern was simple: if an AI coding assistant knows something about the user, for example, that the user is a Java developer or a .NET developer, can this information influence the architecture and technology stack that the AI will propose? This question is important because many companies are starting to use AI tools not only for coding but also for product discovery, architecture, documentation, and technical decision-making. If the AI is influenced by the developer's personal profile, the result may not be fully neutral. It may look like a business or architecture decision, but in reality, it may be partially shaped by the context of the person using the tool. The test was done using BMAD with Devin/Windsurf/Cascade. The scenario was a unified field service operations platform. The task was to let BMAD refine the product, define the architecture and s...

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see...