activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stanislaw Kogut <sko...@sistyma.net>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ consumer performance and scalability
Date Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:47:56 GMT
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Stanislaw Kogut <skogut@sistyma.net>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Stanislaw Kogut <skogut@sistyma.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I already tried every topic here, with no significant effect.
> >> > I'm already using KahaDB for peristence (even placing it's data to
> >> tmpfs).
> >> > I can't use async send/receive, as I need reliable transport.
> >> > I'm using transactions (this is a requirement).
> >>
> >> How about your KahaDB settings? Try this:
> >>
> >> <kahaDB directory="${activemq.base}/data/kahadb"
> >>  enableJournalDiskSyncs="false"
> >>  indexWriteBatchSize="10000"
> >>  indexCacheSize="1000"/>
> >>
> >> Already have this in config file.
> >
> >
> >> > What about multiple consumers? Should they use one or many different
> >> > connection factories or sessions to consume faster?
> >>
> >> Creating multiple sessions from a single connection works well.
> >>
> >> Ok then.
> > What about further scalability of queue? It is very probably I will need
> to
> > send more and more messages. Will distributing queue over many brokers
> help
> > with throughput without significant latency impact? Or there is only way
> to
> > scale up with hardware for broker?
>
> Please provide your broker config file so we can have a look.
>
> Attached config file.


> Another item, have you disabled the dedicated task runner in the
> ActiveMQ start script?
>
Disabled after this question, but looks like it didn't help with one
consumer thread.


>
> Also, have you read through this article?:
>
>
> http://fusesource.com/wiki/display/ProdInfo/Understanding+the+Threads+Allocated+in+ActiveMQ
>
> Looks like it is for vm transport. I'm running (and will run) producer and
consumer on different machines, so I can't get rid of transport threads, as
in in-vm transport.


-- 
Regards,
Stanislaw Kogut
Sistyma LLC

Mime
View raw message