Justin, Thanks for linking the design document for the benchmark test I will need to take a look and see how what the test is for the results to come up with that kind of speed.
Based on my own experience using several types of brokers a typical message rate under any scenario (non-persistent and async producers included) is going to be much slower and come no where near that number. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > Couple of things... > > 1) I agree 100% that comparing Kafka to message brokers like ActiveMQ is > like comparing apples to oranges. They are really quite different. > 2) My point wasn't necessarily to compare Artemis' performance with > Kafka. My reply was simply in response to your assertion that, "Any > standalone broker like ActiveMQ, Artemis, etc is going to be measured at a > rate of thousands per second." I tried to make that clear by quoting this > specific statement, but perhaps my intent wasn't as clear as I'd hoped. > 3) I wasn't attempting to mislead anyone. I apologize if it came across > that way. > 4) The chance of hitting 8 million messages per second is greater than > zero - at least as it's measured by SpecJMS. The benchmark results proves > this. Of course, as with all things performance related the devil is in > the details. Perhaps SpecJMS is measuring throughput in a different way > than you might in your own test. In any event, "the most important > requirement for the SPECjms2007 benchmark is that it is based on a > representative workload scenario including a representative set of > interactions, message types, message sizes and message delivery modes." [1] > 5) Certainly fully synchronous and persistent use-cases will reduce > performance, but many use-cases don't require that. > 6) Clebert's "benchmark" (both code and operating environment) is quite > different from the SpecJMS results I linked. > > > Justin > > [1] https://www.spec.org/jms2007/docs/DesignDocument.html#S1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher Shannon" <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> > To: users@activemq.apache.org > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:28:50 AM > Subject: Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka? > > That may be what the benchmark says but there is zero chance of hitting 8 > million messages per second, especially persistent messages. Take a look > at Clebert's blog: > http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com/2016/12/50k-persistent-messages-per- > second-on.html > And that required making the producer completely async. > > Even non-persistent messages, I think under most use cases and hardware I > would be amazed if the performance was able to go past 100k messages a > second. > > This is not to bash Artemis...it is very fast for a message broker but it > is completely misleading to try and compare real world performance of a > standalone broker (Artemis, ActiveMQ, EMS, etc) with something like Kafka. > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Any standalone broker like ActiveMQ, Artemis, etc is going to be > > measured at a rate of thousands per second. > > > > For what it's worth, HornetQ (upon which Artemis is based) achieved over > 8 > > million messages per second on SpecJMS [1]. I would expect Artemis' > > performance to be comparable (or better given some enhancements put in > > place since then). > > > > > > Justin > > > > [1] http://hornetq.blogspot.com/2011/07/82-million-messages- > > second-with-specjms.html > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Christopher Shannon" <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> > > To: users@activemq.apache.org > > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 6:45:26 AM > > Subject: Re: why AvtiveMq is slowly than Kafka? > > > > You can't compare Kafka to a JMS type message broker. Kafka is > completely > > different. > > > > Kafka is a system that scales horizontally and is essentially a big > > write-ahead log and breaks up the topics into partitions across many > > servers so they can be scanned concurrently. This allows insane message > > rates but the trade off is that the feature set is much less...there are > no > > features like message acknowledgement (messages are not deleted, they are > > aged off and a client can seek to any point in the log), message > > expiration, scheduled messages, transactions (although transaction > support > > is currently being worked on) etc which offloads a lot of work that a > > typical message broker has to do. Kafka clusters can scale to thousands > > of nodes and handle millions of messages per second. > > > > Any standalone broker like ActiveMQ, Artemis, etc is going to be measured > > at a rate of thousands per second. > > > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > For the use case you're after. (No hard syncs). Mmap is a good > candidate. > > > Probably better. > > > > > > > > > Libaio was engineered the case where you hard sync with callbacks from > > the > > > Linux os > > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:46 PM wangqinghuan <1095193...@qq.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > hi clebertsuconic: > > > > i read the blog > > > > https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/2.1.0/persistence.html > > > > By default Apache ActiveMQ Artemis will try and use an AIO > journal.But > > it > > > > seems like that Mmap is also a good implemention.which one gives more > > > > performance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > View this message in context: > > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/why-AvtiveMq-is- > > slowly-than-Kafka- > > > tp4726911p4726992.html > > > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > >
