I’m getting mixed messages :-P This statement:
To drive the disk, the more parallel work that the brokers can > introduce the better. In other words, to get max throughput, you can > increase the num of parallel jms connections per destination, the the > number of destinations per broker, then the number of brokers. At each > stage track peek throughput till it starts to drop off before > introducing the next level of parallelism. conflicts with this one: Increasing the number of producers and destinations involved will increase the > disk utilization. Unless I’m missing something. I have some tests that show that the more workers the better throughput. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:30 PM, artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote: > Exactly where my thoughts were going. The usage of destinations will > have a > big impact here. If there is one producer to a single queue with > persistent > messages, the bottleneck is going to be the message acknowledgements which > require the "sync" to disk. > > Increasing the number of producers and destinations involved will increase > the disk utilization. > > Syncs are hard to see in the scheme of things since they involve waits at > several points and don't show up as significant CPU usage, disk usage, etc. > In other words, it can be hard to see that syncs are the bottleneck. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Lots-of-small-ActiveMQ-instances-or-one-big-one-tp4693133p4693192.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: *San Francisco, CA* blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com … or check out my Google+ profile <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> <http://spinn3r.com>
