Although I strongly recommend you (and everyone) use both of those settings unless there's a clear reason not to (and I didn't even consider the possibility of you not having them on), I expect that conduitSubscriptions will make the lion's share of the difference. Without it, brokers must pass many copies of each message (and must write each one to the persistence store, which is the bottleneck), so it's no surprise that performance is significantly worse than expected.
Let us know what you see with both those settings on. On Jan 31, 2017 6:01 PM, "Adam Whitney" <adam.whit...@sony.com> wrote: ok, we re-ran the test with 3 brokers, 2 producer hosts, and 4 consumer hosts (each consumer host has 50 consumers on a single connection) and this time with the proper configs on the consumer side and the system behaved a little better, but still started queueing on the broker at about 500 tps. Since the system doesn't queue on the broker at all with a single broker, this is more evidence that the network consumers can't handle the load. We'll try again with conduitSubscriptions="true" and decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="true" and I'll post back here when it's done. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. nabble.com/Network-Connector-too-slow-when-receive-high- rate-persistent-message-tp4721293p4721460.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
