Hi-
How big are the messages? Can you post a link to the C++ code. There may
be some gotchas in how its sent or recv'd.
It sounds like you have confirmed that you do not have any network or
disk performance issues, since SonicMQ is getting reasonable numbers on
the same server.
Out-of-the-box ActiveMQ is configured to ensure you don't run out of
memory or lose messages, so it is setup to work for very low memory
footprints.
As a starting point adjust the memoryUsage setting here:
<systemUsage>
<systemUsage>
<memoryUsage>
<memoryUsage percentOfJvmHeap="70" />
</memoryUsage>
<storeUsage>
<storeUsage limit="100 gb"/>
</storeUsage>
<tempUsage>
<tempUsage limit="50 gb"/>
</tempUsage>
</systemUsage>
</systemUsage>
Flip the openwire to nio as well:
<transportConnector name="openwire" uri="nio://0.0.0.0:0"/>
On 6/14/16 7:56 AM, ActiveMQ Investigation wrote:
Hello Celebert,
I am using apache-activemq-5.12.1.
I found out the issue. My subscribers were on same machine as ActiveMQ
install. While 5 subscribers, consuming messages on same machine as install,
it was quite intensive. I moved subscribers to a separate machine than
install and it took 9 seconds to send messages and almost similar to
receive. This is about persistent messages.
For non persistent, in new setup, it takes 1.7 seconds which is acceptable.
However, consumer (gets all msgs in 6 seconds) in is showing messages
waiting for 1+ seconds.
For SonicMQ, time taken is consistent irrespective of consumer on machine
where sonic install is there.
I feel that this 9 second is still high for sending 25000 msgs. It can do
better. Also, can this CPU and memory intensiveness improved.
I will go through Artemis. Sorry for naive query but how different Artemis
is to ActiveMQ. I haven't explored that front.
Thanks
AJ
Thanks
AJ
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Active-MQ-Performance-tp4712952p4712960.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
