Hi Raghu, It may also be worth considering ActiveMQ Artemis in your evaluation. It has a complete blocking architecture end to end and can delivery excellent performance.
https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/ Regards Martyn On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > to have a guarantee the fsync is necessary. possibly move the index to a > separate disk to reduce contention. To boost throughput, have multiple > connections publishing at the same time. In this way, multiple parallel > sends will get the benefit of a batched fsync. > > > On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 at 19:32 RaghuBaddam <raghu98...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am testing ActiveMQ and the performance is too low if I use > > enableJournalDiskSyncs (400 msgs / sec of 10kb) and If I disable > > enableJournalDiskSyncs (4000 msgs / sec of 10kb) It is really 10times > > increase in performance, I tuned almost all the ActiveMQ parameters but > It > > is not giving any better results, I know that If I enable > > concurrentStoreAndDispatchQueues, we will get good results but before > that > > I > > want to understand that, Is there any other way we can Increase our > > performance(I know using Transacted session is an option but we have > > multiple applications so we can’t Insist everyone to use Transacted > session > > :( ) > > > > Is there there any way we can avoid fsync each time with no message loss > ? > > > > We are trying to reach a point where there is No message loss and Good > > performance with ActiveMQ. > > > > Basically we are migrating from Tibco EMS to ActiveMQ, so we really need > > your help. > > > > Thanks in Advance > > Raghu Baddam > > > > > > > > ----- > > Raghu Baddam > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Need-help-to-Improve-ActiveMQ-performance-tp4713527.html > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
