activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ thoughts
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:02:09 GMT
On 10/12/2007, Hellweek <bwinslow@tfutures.com> 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.

Great feedback thanks!

I'd be interested to know how ActiveMQ 5.0 fairs once its released (in
the next couple of days hopefully) - quite a few of the issues you
mention are specific things that were targeted in 5.0 (better flow
control etc).
-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com

Mime
View raw message