activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From yg_cvg <yu...@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ thoughts
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:37:42 GMT

I am personally watching this thread with great interest, as we're
considering using ActiveMQ for a big highly distributed network, but we have
no idea how it would perform in such a setting.


Hellweek wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I know what I am about to post will upset a few people, however I think it
> is important that I document my experience with ActiveMQ in the hopes that
> others like me can have an understanding of the issues that you will face.
> 
> A little history.
> 
> I am not new to Open Source projects, have been involved in them and have
> sponsored the use of open source for many years.
> 
> I have been working with various message brokers for a few years.  My
> first experience was with TIBCO EMS.  Needless to say I was very impressed
> with the stability and functionality of this fine EMS.  Next I had the
> opportunity to work with Sonic EMS.  Again I was impressed with this
> product and was even happier with its low cost of ownership.
> 
> Over the last 6 weeks it has been my job to evaluate for our Trading firm
> an internal messaging system.  We wanted to use a EMS solution for
> dissemination of pricing data to our in-house applications as well as
> external clients of ours.  The messaging systems we are evaluating.  TIBCO
> EMS, MSMQ 3.0, SONIC EMS, ACTIVEMQ 4.1.1 or ActieMQ 5.0.
> 
> How did each product fair?
> 1. Tibco EMS no issues with any of the stress tests and performance tests.
> 2. MSMQ don't even get me started with this POS.
> 3. SONIC EMS no issues with any of the stress tests and performance tests.
> 4. ActiveMQ can not make it past any stress tests.  See issues below for
> an understanding of what we saw.
> 
> 
> I have watched ActiveMQ for well over 2 years and 2 years ago the project
> was so filled with issues that I knew I would never be able to recommend
> it to the owners of the company.  2 Years later and I was in the position
> of trying ActiveMQ again and hoping that it would be stable.
> 
> I was very pleased to see that many of the issues I saw with ActiveMQ had
> been resolved and was committed to giving ActiveMQ a chance at being our
> EMS solution for the future.  However, I can say after weeks of testing
> ActiveMQ Is still not ready for production use by myself and the firm I
> work for.  If you have high message throughput with high number of
> subscribers ActiveMQ is not well suited for your needs.
> 
> Lets take some time to examine the issues.
> 
> CPP ActiveMQ Client
> 1. A fast producer with slow clients can and will take down the producer. 
> From what I have seen in testing a slow client can bring the producer down
> and in some cases can bring the broker down.  A miss-behaved producer or
> client should never ever take the broker down.
> 
> 2. A Producer that producers more then 200 messages per sec locks up the
> Broker when the Broker has only one client connected.  This one was the
> biggest issue to accept and the one issue that caused us to say ActiveMQ
> is not ready for a production environment.  The most basic and simple task
> of the Message Broker is not working as expected and makes the ActiveMQ
> unusable in a environment where peak message Generation can exceed 200
> messages per second.  To be honest we never even get close to 100 messages
> as it seems we die after 50 messages are fired in the same second.  The
> only time I am able to have producers producing without locking up or
> crashing is if I don't have any consumers listening.  Having a messaging
> system that works without consumers is not a valid solution.
> 
> Again important to note.  As long as no consumers are connected I can
> produce massive amounts of messages.  Once you connect a client massive
> issues start to happen.
> 
> 3. Producers and consumers created on the same connection can cause
> deadlocks.  This is a major issue and the main solution is to not do this. 
> However, this is an unacceptable solution as it is my understanding this
> is an acceptable practice.
> 
> 4. A fast producer with a fast consumer leads to resource creep.  I don't
> want to say it is a memory leak because it is not a leak it is just a very
> very slow release of the memory.  I should not have to put sleeps in a
> program just to insure that memory gets released correctly.  In my test I
> had to sleep for 20 MS between each message being sent to keep the
> ActiveMQ consumer running.
> 
> 5. Placing a breakpoint on the message listener on a consumer will cause
> out of memory errors in the producer.  Why me setting a breakpoint on a
> consumer can cause the producer to throw an exception is unacceptable and
> leads me to think that a slow consumer can and will take the broker and or
> producer down.
> 
> 6. Very confusing to determine what version of ActiveMQ will work with
> what version of the client.  Example ActiveMQ 5.0 was released this week. 
> However, no new client was released and no information on when new client
> will be released.  The CPP client just released a 2.1.3 version that
> claims it should be paired with 4.1.1 of the ActiveMQ broker.  Where is
> the CPP client that is to work with the new features of 5.0?
> 
> With all the issues I have I will not be able to go to a production
> environment with ActiveMQ, this is a shame as the people that have been
> working this project are talented people and should be commended for the
> work that has been done.  
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-thoughts-tp14262131s2354p14285042.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message