activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zao Liu" <za...@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject Re: Performance issue for ActiveMQ Server
Date Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:11:00 GMT
I am using Apache ActiveMQ 5.0.  To my understand, dispatchSync only helpful
when have slower consumers and using the consumers using the same
connection, different sessions. But in my case, all consumer threads are
using different connections.

Thanks,
Zao

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Rob Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:

> You can try setting async dispatch on the consumer - see:
> http://activemq.apache.org/consumer-dispatch-async.html
> A separate task would be used then for dispatching to each consumer
>
> cheers.
>
> Rob
> On 21 Feb 2008, at 22:40, Zao Liu wrote:
>
> > Another issue I met is when I increase the number of consumers for
> > testing
> > non-persistent messages,
> > the throughput also get down very fast. I can't find the reason for
> > it.
> > Each consumer thread is a separate connection to the broker.
> > Below is my result for testing (all using one producer to send
> > messages in a
> > separate JVM):
> > 1 consumer:               12683/s
> > 2 consumers:              11289/s
> > 3 consumers:               9956/s
> > 4 consumers:               8638/s
> > 10 consumers:             5820/s
> >
> > Zao
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Ben Chobot <bchobot@vigilos.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I'm just starting to play with ActiveMQ myself, but just as a
> >> datapoint, I found that when writing every durable message to disk
> >> using
> >> the default Kaha store in 5.0, I maxed out at transferring a
> >> whopping 14
> >> 40KB msgs/s. That's using a single, low-performance 7200RPM drive
> >> without write caching. That's slow, but it's also safe, and it's
> >> probably going to be fast enough for us.
> >>
> >> If anybody has any hints on how to make things go faster while still
> >> being safe, I'd love to hear them.
> >>
> >> Zao Liu wrote:
> >>> Yeah, I do need to test for persistence, but firstly I wan to make
> >>> sure
> >> the
> >>> performance
> >>> is good. The result for consuming durable messages make me
> >>> disappointed.
> >> Is
> >>> any specific
> >>> configuration for consuming durable messages?  I do test for
> >>> producing
> >> and
> >>> consuming
> >>> durable messages at the same time, the throughput is also get more
> >>> than
> >>> 3500/s for consuming
> >>> messages. I don't think to consuming messages which has been saved
> >>> to
> >> store
> >>> will be so slow,
> >>> only 50 msgs/s.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message