Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of christian.posta@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <3D9D7375DA3CC046A80F455DE3379AFE121A9D2D@DBXPRD0410MB372.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <3D9D7375DA3CC046A80F455DE3379AFE121A9D2D@DBXPRD0410MB372.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:54:40 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAKS7T5M=vyoBO_jYkU5aTQkqLr79A1K1BX+Nv95j51NXktSbJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Performance of thousands of queues (partitioned load)
From: Christian Posta <christian.posta@gmail.com>
To: "users@activemq.apache.org" <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd76c40e291f104da17cdc5

--047d7bd76c40e291f104da17cdc5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

use the optimizedDispatch setting on the queues, and take that benchmark
and add your usecase to it... should be configurable through an xml file.
it's going to be far more useful to benchmark it on your hardware and your
usecases.


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Itai Frenkel <itaif@gigaspaces.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm looking at the following benchmark:
> http://hiramchirino.com/stomp-benchmark/ubuntu-2600k/ at the "partitioned
> load, Non Persistent" graphs.
> It shows performance for 1x1x1,5x5x5,10x10x10.
>
> Does anyone has experience with thousands of queues? What kind of
> performance degradation should I expect ?
>
> Regards,
> Itai
>
> P.S.
> I've posted the complete use case here:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15934647/scalable-queuing-framework-for-orchestration
>
>
>


-- 
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta

--047d7bd76c40e291f104da17cdc5--