activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <>
Subject Re: Inter Broker overhead is very high
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:24:26 GMT
The inter broker bridges can be bottle necks as they funnel all
messages over a single connection.

Often it is beneficial to partition destinations across multiple
network bridges using the destination filter or include/exclude

In a simple case where application destinations are easily
partitioned; eg: topic:app.X<id>, topic:app.Y.<Id>

Configuring two network bridges and confining destinations of a
particular name to each would help distribute the load. eg:

<networkConnector destinationFilter="app.X.>" duplex="true" ...>
<networkConnector destinationFilter="app.Y.>" duplex="true" ...>

On 5 April 2012 19:53, Saiky76 <> wrote:
> Hi - we are trying out a POC with Active MQ for extremely high rate of
> traffic. Our most important goal is the ability to scale. The topology
> involves topics and for the sake of this post, please consider there is only
> one consumer per topic.
> In our reference topology, producers (more than one) keep posting messages
> to topics to any broker in the cluster of brokers  - using the failover
> protocol that is randomized. Similarly the consumers also attempt to consume
> messages from any broker in the cluster.  Basically, the producers and
> consumers are not aware of the topic location on a specific broker. For this
> to work, I set up network bridge (duplex) between the brokers. In tests that
> had 3 brokers, I ensured all the brokers had a direct network bridge to all
> other brokers - to ensure there is only one broker hop for the message to be
> forwarded to the broker on which the topic consumer is listening.
> The number of connections (both consumers and producers) on a single broker
> never exceeded 250+.
> The vertical scaling results for a single broker is quite impressive. But
> once I try my scaling tests, adding 2 or 3 brokers does not help and the
> throughput that I got from one broker is exactly the same for the scaling
> tests with 2 or 3 brokers. The producers and consumers are randomly writing
> and consuming from the brokers as described above. Actually the load is
> balanced almost evenly in these writes and consumes. Please note I ensured
> enough CPU, memory on the consumer side.
> After doing some analysis, I feel the inter broker communication is
> responsible.  When I tried with 2 brokers and let us say the total number of
> messages consumed is 200k, then the messages exchanged between 2 brokers is
> 100k. Similar is the case when 3 brokers are tested - exactly 66% of
> additional messages are exchanges between brokers.  Looks like each broker
> is doing exactly what is max capable of but the additional power of adding
> broker is nullified by the network hops.
> Any ideas, any advise would be great? I am wondering whether horizonatal
> scalability is actually designed for this. Please note I read the whole of
> ActiveMq in action book and literature avaialable online on MQ. Please again
> note the additional network hop is always one and that is predictable.
> I am trying this on MQ 5.5.1. Thanks.
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at


View raw message