I totally agree. Just be good to somehow quantify and highlight that hard work and how much the project has improved from what was compared to today. And I guess next year again.
I guess if running that spec is too expensive re resource it's not worth it. Sent from my iPhone > On 5 Jun 2017, at 22:27, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @Michael Pearce: The native module on Artemis is totally rewritten... > hornetq libaio used a lot of malloc. Artemis is only calling malloc > once and reusing them on a pool... a lot less locking happening... > just the libaio is better.. > > > For instance.. an issue that you had with 512 bytes blocks recently.. > it wouldn't even be possible to be fixed with hornetq. > > > I don't have number with specj.. but I remember one microbenchmark I > had got 30% better with Artemis after the native update.. just by > itself... > > > ActiveMQ Artemis is getting further and further away from hornetq. > it's evolving nicely IMO. > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Michael André Pearce > <michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: >> @Justin >> >> As you noted, with all the changes since hornetq became artemis, is there an >> updated run of that same JMSspec but on 2.x artemis? >> >> It be great if there was. Just to see. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 5 Jun 2017, at 16:53, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Couple of things... >>> >>> 1) I agree 100% that comparing Kafka to message brokers like ActiveMQ is >>> like comparing apples to oranges. They are really quite different. >>> 2) My point wasn't necessarily to compare Artemis' performance with Kafka. >>> My reply was simply in response to your assertion that, "Any standalone >>> broker like ActiveMQ, Artemis, etc is going to be measured at a rate of >>> thousands per second." I tried to make that clear by quoting this specific >>> statement, but perhaps my intent wasn't as clear as I'd hoped. >>> 3) I wasn't attempting to mislead anyone. I apologize if it came across >>> that way. >>> 4) The chance of hitting 8 million messages per second is greater than zero >>> - at least as it's measured by SpecJMS. The benchmark results proves this. >>> Of course, as with all things performance related the devil is in the >>> details. Perhaps SpecJMS is measuring throughput in a different way than >>> you might in your own test. In any event, "the most important requirement >>> for the SPECjms2007 benchmark is that it is based on a representative >>> workload scenario including a representative set of interactions, message >>> types, message sizes and message delivery modes." [1] >>> 5) Certainly fully synchronous and persistent use-cases will reduce >>> performance, but many use-cases don't require that. >>> 6) Clebert's "benchmark" (both code and operating environment) is quite >>> different from the SpecJMS results I linked. >>> >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> [1] https://www.spec.org/jms2007/docs/DesignDocument.html#S1 >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Christopher Shannon" <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> >>> To: users@activemq.apache.org >>> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:28:50 AM >>> Subject: Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka? >>> >>> 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 >>>>> >>>> > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic
