We actually run Artemis in production with more than 1.000.000 messages processed per week (evenly distributted during the 24 hours of the day), in a VM with 64GB RAM, 16 vCore and 256GB SSD NVME in running in raid mode. Performance is a quite dificult subject to talk about, because all depends on where your server run, where your consumers run, what is your hardware, bare metal or virtual, container or not container, message size, routing rules, replication rules, protocols, disk controller, disk type and disk size, etc. In our case, 90% of this 1.000.000 messages have 44 bytes on length, only 10% are complex json objects.
Few months ago we had few problems (misbehavior), but they got quickly fixed by downloading source code and fixing it ourselves creating a custom distro. Few weeks later, Artemis Team fixed the problem and we returned to the standard distro. Regards, ER. Enviado do Email<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> para Windows De: Clebert Suconic<mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Enviado:quarta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2022 18:50 Para: users@activemq.apache.org<mailto:users@activemq.apache.org> Assunto: Re: Is Artemis Production Ready? publishing a benchmark is a game without end. It's always possible to get a particular usecase or tweak things in a way that will move the benchmark in any direction you want. the best you can do is to measure the use case you want to achieve yourself. I have spent a lot of time with benchmarks before and I don't want to get back to that game myself :) Having said that, we have an ./artemis perf client tool as part of the artemis cli that you can use for some metrics. On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 4:05 AM Francois Papon <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > > Hi, > > /"the reporting performance of Artemis is significantly higher than > Classic"/ > > I'm very interested about such of reporting performance between Artemis > and AMQ. > > Is it possible to share? > > Regards, > > François > > > On 26/09/2022 16:40, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > Couple minor corrections for anyone else reading later.. > > > > On Mon, 26 Sept 2022 at 14:15, Clebert Suconic > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> the major bit from the release (2) only tells you about the API. Currently > >> version 2 will be version 2 as long as we keep the API compatible with > >> previous releases. (When we make it 3.0 it means we can remove a few > >> deprecated methods and other stuff) > >> > >> > >> The second bit, 2.26.0 (26), means we had ** Twenty Six ** releases fixing > >> bugs and improvements since we released the very first 2.0 back in 2017: > >> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/releases/tag/2.0.0 > >> > > Due to 2.y.z releases as well, it is actually now 34 releases since 2.0.0. > > > >> ActiveMQ Artemis was initially donated from HornetQ, and back then we made > >> a roadmap for features we must implement to get the same features from > >> ActiveMQ. I believe at this point we are already beyond.. and that page > >> needs some updating probably to reflect the current state. > >> > >> Also, to talk about production ready quality, the codebase of ActiveMQ > >> Artemis was donated to ActiveMQ back in 2017 from HornetQ. It is a very > >> stable codebase. I have myself dedicated the past 14 years of my profession > >> to this codebase... along other developers who I highly consider, and many > >> other open source contributors... So it is definitely production quality. > > It was late 2014 for the donation, 2015 for the Artemis 1.0.0 release, > > and then 2017 had the Artemis 2.0.0 release. > > > >> Talking about that, I'm releasing 2.26.0 today. > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 6:12 AM Mark Johnson<mark.john...@flooid.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Although Artemis is at Release 2, I cannot find a direct statement in the > >>> online documentation that Artemis is production ready. In contrast, this > >>> page suggests that Artemis is *not* production ready > >>> https://activemq.apache.org/activemq-artemis-roadmap. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Naturally, I must provide evidence that Artemis is considered production > >>> ready by the ActiveMQ team before investing any further effort in > >>> deploying > >>> and testing Artemis to replace Classic. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We are considering Artemis simply because the reporting performance of > >>> Artemis is significantly higher than Classic. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * Mark* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Johnson* > >>> > >>> Principal Product Architect > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Flooid, PCMS House, Torwood Close > >>> > >>> Westwood Business Park > >>> > >>> Coventry, CV4 8HX, United Kingdom > >>> > >>> T: +442475269508 > >>> > >>> M: 07764305692 > >>> > >>> E:mark.john...@flooid.com > >>> > >>> * flooid.com<https://www.flooid.com/>* > >>> > >>> *Click here to send me something sensitive or securely! > >>> <https://sendsafely.pcmsgroup.com/u/Mark.Johnson%40flooid.com>* > >>> > >>> [image: Download now] > >>> <https://www.incisiv.com/playbook-unified-commerce-for-grocery-convenience-retail> > >>> > >>> The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person > >>> or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or > >>> privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, > >>> the use of this information or any disclosure, copying or distribution is > >>> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please > >>> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The views > >>> expressed in this e-mail may not necessarily be the views of Flooid Ltd > >>> and > >>> should not be taken as authority to carry out any instruction contained. > >>> Flooid Ltd reserves the right to monitor and examine the content of all > >>> e-mails. Flooid Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with > >>> company number 1459419 whose registered office is at PCMS House, Torwood > >>> Close, Westwood Business Park, Coventry CV4 8HX, United Kingdom. VAT No: > >>> GB > >>> 705338743. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic
