Recently I have been running some tests against a single instance of ActiveMQ 5.6.0.
The goal of these tests was to get to an instance that could handle a load according to following parameters: - message size: 2048 bytes - transactional - persistant - message rate: 2500 messages/second with a possible growth of 5000 m/s - non-bulk message transactions (needs to support 2500 clients that each send a message, so sending as bulk is cheating) You may have noticed 2 other possible combinations: Both of these are not possible because working non-transacted and then requesting SESSION_TRANSACTED is obviously silly. Test-setup: - 1 producer for which the session is committed after each message - 1 consumer that simply receives the messages and keeps a count (AtomicInteger). - The 2500 message-objects are created beforehand so only the actual sending / committing is benchmarked. - ActiveMQ config : Hardware setup: - a client: i7 3ghz+, 16gb ddr3, 128 gb ssd - a server: i7 3ghz+, 16gb ddr3, 128 gb ssd - a gigabit switch My questions: - Is it normal for a test with just transactions and no persistence to be slower than a test with transactions and persistence? - Why is there such a high impact when transactions are activated? Is there a way to remedy this? -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-good-is-ActiveMQ-supposed-to-perform-tp4653343.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
