activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ozan Seymen <Ozan.Sey...@tdpg.com>
Subject RE: Enqueue performance with camel multicast
Date Fri, 27 May 2011 16:46:00 GMT
Realized that Camel config is not appearing in email readers, so here is the route:

<camelContext id="camel" xmlns="http://camel.apache.org/schema/spring">
                <route>
                        <description>Q1 to Q2</description>
                        <from uri="activemq:queue:Q1"/>
                        <multicast>
                                <to uri="activemq:queue:Q2"/>
                        </multicast>
                </route>
</camelContext>

oseymen

-----Original Message-----
From: oseymen [mailto:ozan.seymen@tdpg.com]
Sent: 26 May 2011 15:35
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Enqueue performance with camel multicast

Hello,

I came across a case while conducting performance testing using ActiveMQ
v5.4.2 and Camel v2.6.

I have two queues (Q1 and Q2) and one camel route defined as:



                        Q1 to Q2







I have one console app (C#) sending messages to Q1. Delivery mode is Persistent. I do not
set the acknowledge mode (so default AutoAcknowledge is used). I am not using transactions
and there are no connection uri parameters set (tcp://localhost:61616). This app increments
performance counters every time a message is sent. There are no consumers on those queues
(apart from Camel) - so messages build up in queues.

I start the broker, stop the camel route and start the publisher app. I see
~380-420 msg/s enqueue speed. When I start camel route, speed drops to
~200-250 msg/s. When I stop the camel route again, speed comes back up to
~400 msg/s.

BTW: Both AMQ and producer is running on one box.

My conclusion from this is that my producer appears to be waiting for camel to move messages
from Q1 to Q2 (and message to be safely persisted to Q2) before it gets an ack back from the
broker.

Do you think my conclusion is correct? If I add a couple of more queues for Camel to multicast,
would I see even decreased enqueue performance?

Any guidance is appreciated.

oseymen



--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Enqueue-performance-with-camel-multicast-tp3552714p3552714.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains
information which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright.
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not
copy or use it or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the
sender immediately and then delete it from your system.

Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the
views and opinions of The Digital Property Group Limited or any of its subsidiary companies.

We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check
this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any
computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. We reserve the right to monitor
all e-mail communications.

The Digital Property Group Limited is a Daily Mail and General Trust plc company.
Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London, W8 5TT.
Registered in England & Wales No: 02290527  VAT no. 243571174

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

Mime
View raw message