Our system is taking 6~7 seconds to pull a message off of a queue using a simple selector (id = ?). The queue has about 20,000 messages which are fairly small. I ran through a quick series of tests and this is what I came up with.
** NO PERSISTENCE ** # of Messages = 20,000 Avg time to Send = 64 ms (per send) // Using a message converter Avg time to read = 16 ms (per read) // Read 500 messages of queue of 20,000 messages ** Default Journaling with Derby ** # of Messages = 20,000 Avg time to Send = Took over 20 minutes for test. Appox 1 min per message Avg time to read = Aborted Test after 30 minutes. Wasn't worth completing. ** Using Kaha Persistence ** # of Messages = 20,000 Avg time to Send = ~ 500 ms (per send) Avg time to read = ~ 1.2 seconds (per read) My question is why is the default persistence appear to be SO SLOW... Especially compared to the Kaha persistence. Is Derby the bottleneck with the default journaling? If not what is the difference between the standard Journaling and Kaha? Any guidance would be appreciated.. Thank you, Darrell -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Poort-ActiveMQ-Persistence-Performance-tf4535973s2354.html#a12945570 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
