g
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
Like with pretty much any Java app, you end up running a VM in a VM.
Performance on IO, CPU sharing and so on will be impacted.
That doesn't mean that you couldn't scale in different ways with more VM
instances instead.
On Jan 24, 2014
nt - I'm curious.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-on-Physical-Server-vs-VM-tp4676715p4676763.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ctivemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-on-Physical-Server-vs-VM-tp4676715p4676763.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Message-
From: artnaseef [mailto:a...@artnaseef.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:53 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
No more advantage than for any other application/service. There's nothing
inherit to ActiveMQ that needs real har
No more advantage than for any other application/service. There's nothing
inherit to ActiveMQ that needs real hardware - it relies entirely on the O/S
to handle low-level hardware I/O.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-on-Physical-Server-
I am wondering if there is an advantage to having ActiveMQ installed on a
Physical server over a VM, or vice versa. Thoughts?
