Return-Path: 
 <users-return-41119-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7EC721761B
	for <apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:14:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 19033 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2015 05:14:58 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org
Received: (qmail 18984 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2015 05:14:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@activemq.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.activemq.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org
Received: (qmail 18972 invoked by uid 99); 18 Feb 2015 05:14:57 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:14:57 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_REMOTE_IMAGE
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of burtonator2011@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.214.170] (HELO mail-ob0-f170.google.com)
 (209.85.214.170)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:14:32 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id va2so61340081obc.1
        for <users@activemq.apache.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:13:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
        bh=i4wqiPtBFRv8y1EKY2QQR1gADQfGiqckbU72bkFOUIM=;
        b=czUF7yQ/pCeZyYNF1UlqDZ3p1DkU3x1WKMDQEUgZCV2YOlLt2PIi6MAdkj58pTRlZf
         FDJijnPaIYSSJm7ICtV2LHHDkOsSbjQl8QmETyewq7ry9y6abHCe2VDQO3DyfiklVpuE
         W4MN86U8LNlDfzJ8WWd1psoTkAmE/4wNI2iPKbS7ehtzhd1u5V2A4yu76RBZofId9TAg
         Wc5dYzLk5xleDP2+LXS+Hry78XVxHR/IFdEtUjfEtpDfga57frF4eCPp5yYyDau6d+6H
         0X0pOTkSnMqB0nGXvH3sNamKdhuEpiRk65XtoB8ALe1fhhUzOZL05eTiTmflAB/o6IeJ
         Ao8Q==
X-Received: by 10.182.68.68 with SMTP id u4mr20888920obt.82.1424236380961;
 Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:13:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: burtonator2011@gmail.com
Received: by 10.183.6.234 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:12:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Kevin Burton <burton@spinn3r.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:12:40 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4k3S3D1ULDLF0HUwe3u7aS36bBo
Message-ID: 
 <CAAZU44mKVx5oanXOVf1+6fTU_emDiHNKTO+-CdyPZVo1PbdkSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: DeliveryMode.NON_PERSISTENT is 5x faster even though broker
 persistent=false
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83a6a5903d87050f55df1a
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--e89a8f83a6a5903d87050f55df1a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I=E2=80=99ve had to revert to running with a non-persistent broker for a wh=
ile
until I can figure out my performance issues.

In the activemq.xml file I=E2=80=99m running with:

  persistent=3D"false"

in the <broker>

I=E2=80=99ve confirmed that it=E2=80=99s not writing to disk=E2=80=A6

However, I now have a benchmark that tests DeliveryMode.NON_PERSISTENT
vs DeliveryMode.PERSISTENT

and DeliveryMode.NON_PERSISTENT is 5x faster even though (at this point) it
should be redundant.

Here are the raw numbers:

duration: 6,334 ms (nrThreads=3D1 nrMessagesPerThread=3D50,000 persistent=
=3Dtrue,
transacted=3Dfalse)
duration: 913 ms (nrThreads=3D1 nrMessagesPerThread=3D50,000 persistent=3Df=
alse,
transacted=3Dfalse)

Why would this be?  My theory is that ActiveMQ does additional accounting
for persistent messages (vs non-persistent ones).

My plan is to convert everything to be explicitly NON_PERSISTENT because of
this.

--=20

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
=E2=80=A6 or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>

--e89a8f83a6a5903d87050f55df1a--