That may be what the benchmark says but there is zero chance of hitting 8 million messages per second, especially persistent messages. Take a look at Clebert's blog: http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com/2016/12/50k-persistent-messages-per-second-on.html And that required making the producer completely async.
Even non-persistent messages, I think under most use cases and hardware I would be amazed if the performance was able to go past 100k messages a second. This is not to bash Artemis...it is very fast for a message broker but it is completely misleading to try and compare real world performance of a standalone broker (Artemis, ActiveMQ, EMS, etc) with something like Kafka. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 > > >
