Make sure you reuse connections on your test. We will need something concrete like a runnable test If you see something wrong
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 1:17 PM, jim_b_o <ja...@inaseq.com> wrote: > M > I think the memory comparison is fair in this case. The main application > load is events received via a ResourceAdapter passed to POJOs which process > and return responses via the same ResourceAdapter. There is no Web > component and EJBs are only for admin functions and not being invoked during > these tests. The JMS is an outbound feed of a small subset of the processed > events. So the only container code under test is the JMS and a small part > of the ResourceAdapter glue although most of that is done using Spring and > is the same in both containers. The POJOs and ResourceAdapter are identical > in both systems. > > This does impact application performance. I don't doubt that Artemis can > handle more messages and do so faster than the old messaging but it is not > operating in a vacuum. The JMS performance is not a critical aspect of this > system. The critical aspect is how quickly and reliably the POJOs can > receive/process/respond via the ResourceAdapter. These longer > stop-the-world GCs that appear to be due to the JMS cause hick-ups in that > processing. The JMS is doubling the GC pause time. > > I'll run another test to confirm if the excess PhantomReferences are from > Netty or XNIO. I'm currently connecting the JMS and EJB client > simultaneously so I'll separate them. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Artemis-use-of-PhantomReference-impacting-GC-performance-tp4706961p4706976.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
