activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arjen van der Meijden <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Production worthiness
Date Sat, 11 Jun 2011 07:32:29 GMT
First off, I wouldn't call "< 10k/minute" low volume (unless its also < 
1k orso), but that's a matter of opinion. I think my peak of about 10k 
messages/minute constitutes of a "relatively high volume".

At least on the comment of not being able to run out of the box... it 
did for me every time and version I tried. And we run almost all pub/sub 
messages in its durable storage.

And yes, we ran into issues with our very high connect/disconnect-rate. 
But that isn't exactly how you'd normally use the software and can be 
configured since some 4.x version (although I don't know how well that 
flag is documented).

Neither postgresql nor tomcat are necessarily in a production-ready 
state with their default install. Postgresql will run, but will likely 
require tuning for optimum performance. Although that obviously depends 
on the dataset, query-load and query-types used.
Tomcat has the same issue with heap size, simply because that's a 
java-issue, not tomcat or activemq. For any jvm-instance there will be a 
use case where the default heap size may not be adequate for either the 
amount of memory it will allocate or for optimum performance.

I wouldn't run tomcat or postgresql with "<10k queries/pageviews per 
minute" with the default install, unless its really much less than 10k.

The other issues I leave to other readers of this list.

Anyway, I'm at least one of the (rare?) positive users of ActiveMQ. I 
actually did a evaluation of what was available at the time (some 3-4 
years ago) and everything was either (much) slower than ActiveMQ, 
couldn't be connected to from PHP (we use Stomp now) or I couldn't get 
it to work... So basically all his negative points on the 
ActiveMQ-setup, I had that with other message queues ;-)

But we haven't tried HA yet, so we may run into issues with that. We'll 
see, I'm not going to put ActiveMQ aside because someone rants about it 
and claims he cannot find any positive users of it (see his follow-up, 
its even more negative).

Best regards,


On 11-6-2011 1:14 Ravi wrote:
> We are considering ActiveMQ for production and somebody pointed to us the
> following link. Anyone comment on the  issues pointed out here ?
> Thank you
> Ravi

View raw message