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 2E646200CD4 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 2B17D16E73D; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:21:25 +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 74C3A16E73A for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:21:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 89319 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2017 04:21:23 -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 89307 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jul 2017 04:21:22 -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; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:21:22 +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 6FD72C00B6 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:21:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.544 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.544 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 1s9kFAPiLLFh for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:21:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com (mail-ua0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 31D205F2AC for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:21:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f178.google.com with SMTP id z22so61628763uah.1 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:21:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=pyoS6eXplpMZKUgcHCJmhas5MdKqlJRNeYeKL6b8cBY=; b=PIAGc240Pga4mjEhihviJBoO5nJLiWURkPwnZ8EI5yX14Lq/aATQMmGhfmBG8jZzwv oWpVyNuau5itqnKUWhncGhM4j3bgFJnB4UnoWLLjUMBUZIyAQ/7bxsaA3E7/0Mt0Jdl7 3FPvWULFWnSn/cYJgN3PuDbIGiRrP5gsJrLaN8rf0U5uzV6IR0WWkqjvRIly5/gixGIb aBXzrqolhUNFB+uNV42rrFo5tWugNc1mYCuLBMXXqImZLKLPubDiaVRnQg11iFcjdRxX 8XviHkaX1psRkFn3b0uNbkgdf3i52hpMXqVMAKZI6CRk8D8xFPzeoSZK277zHxE3Kl79 LgSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pyoS6eXplpMZKUgcHCJmhas5MdKqlJRNeYeKL6b8cBY=; b=uAKGa37hYy4Yon9eZJXj/K+0krO3mGFLJYvGA1Mc5sTm9deMyq4a9BSil9g9vYu6Ts 4YSrgH+6Q2eSSM9kebxdw3VXICQvjYCCPgSCckq6w1gjVR5gRY4jm15RQRtJOKBwZTFt OJowtxUGxUKOrIGemfzFMRmPHEgr6O18vq/vbU/PZcHDatDSQSnBnoI7IJrhDLvYuCRu 1c6aTh7ij2BhUZh/vyN7guQA6uufoOrwN7fPqSJq4mhABYrCkt4erI3xzUZIUA9hDo04 60Lk483uX///DOIRQcwRqaeYl5akIcLRgtEGcQp6Ds1Fpgnon9mTCjbVNxMDauy85D0b y60w== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1126VOTPSbJhWl+KIRqkSteQYRwdHWhHVu6S+mCuI94hionjUH5r /xELHFeFtjdCBgZY/E0puGbc1bi6iA== X-Received: by 10.176.79.43 with SMTP id n43mr6047474uah.101.1500092474457; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:21:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: tbain98@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.119.205 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:20:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1500080053974-4728566.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1500029977053-4728551.post@n4.nabble.com> <1500080053974-4728566.post@n4.nabble.com> From: Tim Bain Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 22:20:54 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Jt2eY4TohIbHueblPc97Qh-NuHc Message-ID: Subject: Re: Active MQ - Performance with CLIENT Ack To: ActiveMQ Users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043c6d241202200554537ffc" archived-at: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:21:25 -0000 --f403043c6d241202200554537ffc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Is your workflow process-ack-process-ack-process-ack (one message at a time immediately followed by acking that one message, in a single thread)? If so, I'd expect your processing to be slower than if you only acknowledge every Nth message, though I'm not sure how significant of a performance impact I'd expect that to be. Can you describe in more detail what you're actually observing? Are you slowly but correctly consuming messages (i.e. this is a performance problem but not a correctness problem)? Or is the problem that messages are not being acknowledged at all (none, zip, zero), which makes this a correctness problem? You've described both types of problem in your description, but any problem is by definition only one or the other, and knowing what the actual problem is will help us focus on what's actually wrong. Tim On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:54 PM, akpuvvada wrote: > We are testing it from Tibco Business Works. We configured the JMS > Connection > using JNDI. > > With auto acknowledged we did not see any issues. Everything worked fine. > > We are testing queues. Topics are also in scope for the testing, have not > started yet. > > I did not configure prefetch, using the default which as per documentation > is 1000. > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > nabble.com/Active-MQ-Performance-with-CLIENT-Ack-tp4728551p4728566.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > --f403043c6d241202200554537ffc--