> Any standalone broker like ActiveMQ, Artemis, etc is going to be measured at > a rate of thousands per second.
For what it's worth, HornetQ (upon which Artemis is based) achieved over 8 million messages per second on SpecJMS [1]. I would expect Artemis' performance to be comparable (or better given some enhancements put in place since then). Justin [1] http://hornetq.blogspot.com/2011/07/82-million-messages-second-with-specjms.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Shannon" <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> To: users@activemq.apache.org Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 6:45:26 AM Subject: Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka? You can't compare Kafka to a JMS type message broker. Kafka is completely different. Kafka is a system that scales horizontally and is essentially a big write-ahead log and breaks up the topics into partitions across many servers so they can be scanned concurrently. This allows insane message rates but the trade off is that the feature set is much less...there are no features like message acknowledgement (messages are not deleted, they are aged off and a client can seek to any point in the log), message expiration, scheduled messages, transactions (although transaction support is currently being worked on) etc which offloads a lot of work that a typical message broker has to do. Kafka clusters can scale to thousands of nodes and handle millions of messages per second. Any standalone broker like ActiveMQ, Artemis, etc is going to be measured at a rate of thousands per second. On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > For the use case you're after. (No hard syncs). Mmap is a good candidate. > Probably better. > > > Libaio was engineered the case where you hard sync with callbacks from the > Linux os > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:46 PM wangqinghuan <1095193...@qq.com> wrote: > > > hi clebertsuconic: > > i read the blog > > https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/2.1.0/persistence.html > > By default Apache ActiveMQ Artemis will try and use an AIO journal.But it > > seems like that Mmap is also a good implemention.which one gives more > > performance? > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/why-AvtiveMq-is-slowly-than-Kafka- > tp4726911p4726992.html > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
