It seems enableJournalDiskSyncs="false" do the trick, but what does this setting actually do? Is it something i should worry about when disabling this feature?
Dejan Bosanac wrote: > > Hi Duro, > > kahadb has some trade-offs for scalability and recovery speed vs. > performance, but shouldn't that much slower. You can check > activemq-throughout.xml config and see if applying some the parameters > seen there can help you. > > If performance is your main issue (not scalability and recovery) then > maybe amq store is the best choice for you. > > Cheers > -- > Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb > > Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ > ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > Blog - http://www.nighttale.net > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Duro <duroku...@zoznam.sk> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> i've tested kahadb and kahaPersistenceAdapter using same simple test >> conditions i.e. >> >> - persistent queue >> - 3 consumers >> - 1 producer >> - 25 kb message size (10 000 msgs) >> >> according this, kahadb has troughput 22 msgs/s while >> kahaPersistenceAdapter >> 333 msgs/s. Similar difference observed using kahadb with amq 5.3, amq >> 5.4 >> snapshot and 5.3.1 snapshot. Why is that? Is it possible to somehow >> configure kahadb (or message producer) to get better results? >> >> Duro >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://old.nabble.com/low-persistent-messaging-performance-using-kahadb-tp26747184p26747184.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > ----- > Dejan Bosanac > > Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ > ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > Blog - http://www.nighttale.net > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-persistent-messaging-performance-using-kahadb-tp26747184p26777411.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
