I see u are using 4.1.1 and we are using DMX storage(SAN) to persist data and its very fast. i see that u mentioned that performance degrades overtime( is it mins or hours or days?). What is ur throughput rate and how much memory did u configure for MemoryUsageManager?
naga007 wrote: > > > which version of activemq are u using and Can u post ur activemq.xml > file?. > > > > Anthrope wrote: >> >> Hello, >> Our application is essentially a pipeline of processing engines that >> communicate via JMS queues, and so far, ActiveMQ has been the JMS >> implementation of our choice. In our application, engines produce data >> and dumping it onto a queue, and a number of engines read that data, >> process it and dump them onto another queue that is in turn read from by >> other engines downstream, and so on. We normally have one ActiveMQ >> instance serving one queue, but that is configurable. The messages range >> in size from 300k to 1M at the most. >> >> Over the course of time, we've faced different issues vis-a-vis >> performance or stability but the problems have eventually been solved. >> Now, we're close to going into production and are facing a serious hurdle >> that threatens to delay our rollout. >> >> The problem is this: over time, we notice that the average time it takes >> to read from or write to a queue gradually increases until things become >> so sluggish that we need to restart ActiveMQ. Our processing engines do >> not need to be restarted because we're using the failover URL, and they >> automatically reconnect. Once we restart ActiveMQ, things run fine for a >> while before the sluggishness sets in. I have noticed no leaks in our own >> application code, and ActiveMQ itself seems to be fine from a memory >> usage standpoint. >> >> Our configuration is as follows: >> >> - ActiveMQ 4.1.1 >> - Linux 2.6.9-34.ELsmp >> - Java 1.5.0_09 >> - Were using queues with transacted sessions >> - We're using MySQL as the persistent store (Please not that we see this >> problem arise with ALL store implementations, including our own homegrown >> BDB store, which is why I am convinced it is not the store itself) >> >> Does anyone have an idea as to where I might look, to solve this problem? >> >> Thanks, >> Prashanth >> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Slowdown-tf4038323s2354.html#a11502118 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
