Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046B5200CAD for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 00:46:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 012AC160BE1; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 22:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 42C19160BD4 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 00:46:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 15274 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2017 22:46:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 15263 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jun 2017 22:46:04 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 22:46:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 94A87C0040 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 22:46:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 5.737 X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.737 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=2, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bh3j5ZBthHpj for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 22:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mwork.nabble.com (mwork.nabble.com [162.253.133.43]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id A05AC5FBBB for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 22:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mjoe.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.57]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E523479DF97C for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:46:01 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:30:47 -0700 (PDT) From: andytaylor To: users@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <1496368623850-4726911.post@n4.nabble.com> <1496507482680-4726992.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_36615_1287626672.1496701847590" archived-at: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 22:46:06 -0000 ------=_Part_36615_1287626672.1496701847590 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit well said On 5 June 2017 at 12:31, christopher.l.shannon [via ActiveMQ] < ml+s2283324n4727011h21@n4.nabble.com> wrote: > You can't compare Kafka to a JMS type message broker. Kafka is completely > different. > > Kafka is a system that scales horizontally and is essentially a big > write-ahead log and breaks up the topics into partitions across many > servers so they can be scanned concurrently. This allows insane message > rates but the trade off is that the feature set is much less...there are > no > features like message acknowledgement (messages are not deleted, they are > aged off and a client can seek to any point in the log), message > expiration, scheduled messages, transactions (although transaction support > is currently being worked on) etc which offloads a lot of work that a > typical message broker has to do. Kafka clusters can scale to thousands > of nodes and handle millions of messages per second. > > Any standalone broker like ActiveMQ, Artemis, etc is going to be measured > at a rate of thousands per second. > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email] > > > wrote: > > > For the use case you're after. (No hard syncs). Mmap is a good > candidate. > > Probably better. > > > > > > Libaio was engineered the case where you hard sync with callbacks from > the > > Linux os > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:46 PM wangqinghuan <[hidden email] > > wrote: > > > > > hi clebertsuconic: > > > i read the blog > > > https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/2.1.0/persistence.html > > > By default Apache ActiveMQ Artemis will try and use an AIO journal.But > it > > > seems like that Mmap is also a good implemention.which one gives more > > > performance? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/why-AvtiveMq-is- > slowly-than-Kafka- > > tp4726911p4726992.html > > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/why-AvtiveMq-is-slowly-than-Kafka- > tp4726911p4727011.html > To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - User, email > ml+s2283324n2341805h35@n4.nabble.com > To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ - User, click here > > . > NAML > > -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/why-AvtiveMq-is-slowly-than-Kafka-tp4726911p4727048.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------=_Part_36615_1287626672.1496701847590--