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
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, at 6:37 AM, artnaseef wrote:
> Interesting question (
Interesting question (dedicatd NIC) - that's more a VM question than an
ActiveMQ question. With sharing the NIC with other load, the issue becomes,
what other loads are sharing and how much? Very much a question outside of
ActiveMQ itself.
Is it possible for a VM host to dedicate a physical NIC
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-vs-VM-tp46
