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 barry.barnett@wellsfargo.com
 designates 151.151.26.137 as permitted sender)
From: <barry.barnett@wellsfargo.com>
To: <users@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: RE: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
Thread-Topic: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
Thread-Index: Ac8YWCl5ywkZ5p+QRry4MCF/HOhIJgARmkYAABh5oYAAEOR6gAAJG+IAALBVRHA=
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:07:54 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <443BCE38E921434394B45FF0813FA5781ED29BCF@MSGEXSV21103.ent.wfb.bank.corp>
References: 
 <443BCE38E921434394B45FF0813FA5781ED254B4@MSGEXSV21103.ent.wfb.bank.corp>
 <1390503156684-4676716.post@n4.nabble.com>
 <443BCE38E921434394B45FF0813FA5781ED2641E@MSGEXSV21103.ent.wfb.bank.corp>
 <1390574225558-4676763.post@n4.nabble.com>
 <45AC9C7C-F3A6-494F-BB25-A8C7E8F9EA37@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <45AC9C7C-F3A6-494F-BB25-A8C7E8F9EA37@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

If you are using ZooKeeper to handle the new features of levelDB on v5.9, I=
 would think a dedicated NIC would increase performance if this is not shar=
ed on the physical server.  I wasn't aware that a dedicated NIC could be ut=
ilized on a VM.  I thought this was shared with all resources on the VM spa=
ce, no?

Regards,

Barry Barnett
WMQ Enterprise Services & Solutions
Open Queuing Services & Solutions
Wells Fargo
Cell: 704-564-5501


-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Edstrom [mailto:seijoed@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:58 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM

Like with pretty much any Java app, you end up running a VM in a VM.....
Performance on IO, CPU sharing and so on will be impacted.
That doesn't mean that you couldn't scale in different ways with more VM in=
stances instead.


On Jan 24, 2014, at 6:37 AM, artnaseef <art@artnaseef.com> wrote:

> Interesting question (dedicatd NIC) - that's more a VM question than=20
> an ActiveMQ question.  With sharing the NIC with other load, the issue=20
> becomes, what other loads are sharing and how much?  Very much a=20
> question outside of ActiveMQ itself.
>=20
> Is it possible for a VM host to dedicate a physical NIC to one of the VMs=
?=20
> Or to dedicate some bandwidth on the NIC to one of the VMs?
>=20
> The bottom line is that, from an ActiveMQ perspective, there's nothing=20
> inheritenly different between a VM and real hardware.  Resource sizes,=20
> sharing, and the like are the same questions with and without VMs,=20
> although VMs do change the basic resource allocation by their very nature=
.
>=20
> If anyone has benchmarks for various hardware platforms, that would be=20
> really helpful for this question.
>=20
> Please share any knowledge you find on this front - I'm curious.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> View this message in context:=20
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-on-Physical-Server-vs-V
> M-tp4676715p4676763.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list=20
> archive at Nabble.com.