Oh, I misunderstood. Gotcha. I was thinking the idea was that AMQ wasn't doing a good job spreading itself across the available cores/CPUs. I'm picking up what you're putting down now. Thanks, Hiram.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: > What ideally should happen is that under high load the network should > be the bottleneck. But right now CPU is the bottleneck. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:53 AM, James Carman > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is the expected behavior that even under high load AMQ would only be >> using one core/CPU, or less than it could/should be in some way? >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Thank you for the links - I'll try setting this up on my test lab. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jamie >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> you can also use the producer/consumer examples from a distro. >>>> Last time I was trying to saturate a network I uses some of the scripts at >>>> https://github.com/gtully/broker-run/blob/master/scripts/clients.sh >>>> >>>> I have not been in there for a while but you may find it useful to run >>>> parallel load over multiple destinations. >>>> >>>> On 27 March 2015 at 10:14, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> It was mentioned on another thread that ActiveMQ has hard challenges >>>>> with CPU core/thread scaling - I was wondering if there was a test >>>>> case/script published some where that shows this issue occurring? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Jamie > > > > -- > Hiram Chirino > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > [email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
