Here is what I can say. With the exception of the issue that I have posted about here I can tell you that I am very happy with the performance of ActiveMQ.
As our applications depend on some for of MOM all of our applications use a common MessagingLayer. As such it took very little time for us to create this layer and instantly have our applications use it. I can tell you that the ActiveMQ is much faster then our existing MOM as such I was very excited about the possible improvments to performance. I think the issue I am reporting here is more an issue with Interoperability between C++ and C#. At least thats what it is looking like. A problem has been opened for this issue. This is a very positive sign. However, I can tell you that you should invest the time in exploring ActiveMQ. yg_cvg wrote: > > I am personally watching this thread with great interest, as we're > considering using ActiveMQ for a big highly distributed network, but we > have no idea how it would perform in such a setting. > > > Hellweek wrote: >> >> >> Hello, >> >> I know what I am about to post will upset a few people, however I think >> it is important that I document my experience with ActiveMQ in the hopes >> that others like me can have an understanding of the issues that you will >> face. >> >> A little history. >> >> I am not new to Open Source projects, have been involved in them and have >> sponsored the use of open source for many years. >> >> I have been working with various message brokers for a few years. My >> first experience was with TIBCO EMS. Needless to say I was very >> impressed with the stability and functionality of this fine EMS. Next I >> had the opportunity to work with Sonic EMS. Again I was impressed with >> this product and was even happier with its low cost of ownership. >> >> Over the last 6 weeks it has been my job to evaluate for our Trading firm >> an internal messaging system. We wanted to use a EMS solution for >> dissemination of pricing data to our in-house applications as well as >> external clients of ours. The messaging systems we are evaluating. >> TIBCO EMS, MSMQ 3.0, SONIC EMS, ACTIVEMQ 4.1.1 or ActieMQ 5.0. >> >> How did each product fair? >> 1. Tibco EMS no issues with any of the stress tests and performance >> tests. >> 2. MSMQ don't even get me started with this POS. >> 3. SONIC EMS no issues with any of the stress tests and performance >> tests. >> 4. ActiveMQ can not make it past any stress tests. See issues below for >> an understanding of what we saw. >> >> >> I have watched ActiveMQ for well over 2 years and 2 years ago the project >> was so filled with issues that I knew I would never be able to recommend >> it to the owners of the company. 2 Years later and I was in the position >> of trying ActiveMQ again and hoping that it would be stable. >> >> I was very pleased to see that many of the issues I saw with ActiveMQ had >> been resolved and was committed to giving ActiveMQ a chance at being our >> EMS solution for the future. However, I can say after weeks of testing >> ActiveMQ Is still not ready for production use by myself and the firm I >> work for. If you have high message throughput with high number of >> subscribers ActiveMQ is not well suited for your needs. >> >> Lets take some time to examine the issues. >> >> CPP ActiveMQ Client >> 1. A fast producer with slow clients can and will take down the producer. >> From what I have seen in testing a slow client can bring the producer >> down and in some cases can bring the broker down. A miss-behaved >> producer or client should never ever take the broker down. >> >> 2. A Producer that producers more then 200 messages per sec locks up the >> Broker when the Broker has only one client connected. This one was the >> biggest issue to accept and the one issue that caused us to say ActiveMQ >> is not ready for a production environment. The most basic and simple >> task of the Message Broker is not working as expected and makes the >> ActiveMQ unusable in a environment where peak message Generation can >> exceed 200 messages per second. To be honest we never even get close to >> 100 messages as it seems we die after 50 messages are fired in the same >> second. The only time I am able to have producers producing without >> locking up or crashing is if I don't have any consumers listening. >> Having a messaging system that works without consumers is not a valid >> solution. >> >> Again important to note. As long as no consumers are connected I can >> produce massive amounts of messages. Once you connect a client massive >> issues start to happen. >> >> 3. Producers and consumers created on the same connection can cause >> deadlocks. This is a major issue and the main solution is to not do >> this. However, this is an unacceptable solution as it is my >> understanding this is an acceptable practice. >> >> 4. A fast producer with a fast consumer leads to resource creep. I don't >> want to say it is a memory leak because it is not a leak it is just a >> very very slow release of the memory. I should not have to put sleeps in >> a program just to insure that memory gets released correctly. In my test >> I had to sleep for 20 MS between each message being sent to keep the >> ActiveMQ consumer running. >> >> 5. Placing a breakpoint on the message listener on a consumer will cause >> out of memory errors in the producer. Why me setting a breakpoint on a >> consumer can cause the producer to throw an exception is unacceptable and >> leads me to think that a slow consumer can and will take the broker and >> or producer down. >> >> 6. Very confusing to determine what version of ActiveMQ will work with >> what version of the client. Example ActiveMQ 5.0 was released this week. >> However, no new client was released and no information on when new client >> will be released. The CPP client just released a 2.1.3 version that >> claims it should be paired with 4.1.1 of the ActiveMQ broker. Where is >> the CPP client that is to work with the new features of 5.0? >> >> With all the issues I have I will not be able to go to a production >> environment with ActiveMQ, this is a shame as the people that have been >> working this project are talented people and should be commended for the >> work that has been done. >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-thoughts-tp14262131s2354p14295525.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
