Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 18250 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2009 09:29:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Oct 2009 09:29:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 79937 invoked by uid 500); 13 Oct 2009 09:29:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 79879 invoked by uid 500); 13 Oct 2009 09:29:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 79869 invoked by uid 99); 13 Oct 2009 09:29:30 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:29:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:29:19 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Mxdgg-0001Gc-PI for users@activemq.apache.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:28:58 -0700 Message-ID: <25869764.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:28:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrik Nordwall To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Performance of persistent messages In-Reply-To: <25868321.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: patrik.nordwall@gmail.com References: <25862425.post@talk.nabble.com> <25862740.post@talk.nabble.com> <25868321.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I think (hope) I have found the root of problem. I found a test program in SonicMQ documentation: http://communities.progress.com/pcom/servlet/JiveServlet/download/10720-3-10090/mq_tuning_76.pdf It tests performance of RandomAccessFile.getFD().sync() Is that relevant for ActiveMQ persistence performance? When running this on the test server I got 145 syncs/second. It should be mid-range SAN, but it must be something wrong with it. I tested on high-end SAN and got 2300 syncs/second. /Patrik -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-of-persistent-messages-tp25862425p25869764.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.