You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by ba...@wellsfargo.com on 2014/01/23 17:28:36 UTC
ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
I am wondering if there is an advantage to having ActiveMQ installed on a Physical server over a VM, or vice versa. Thoughts?
RE: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
Posted by ba...@wellsfargo.com.
If you are using ZooKeeper to handle the new features of levelDB on v5.9, I would think a dedicated NIC would increase performance if this is not shared on the physical server. I wasn't aware that a dedicated NIC could be utilized on a VM. I thought this was shared with all resources on the VM space, no?
Regards,
Barry Barnett
WMQ Enterprise Services & Solutions
Open Queuing Services & Solutions
Wells Fargo
Cell: 704-564-5501
-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Edstrom [mailto:seijoed@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:58 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
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, at 6:37 AM, artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> 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 to one of the VMs?
> Or to dedicate some bandwidth on the NIC to one of the VMs?
>
> The bottom line is that, from an ActiveMQ perspective, there's nothing
> inheritenly different between a VM and real hardware. Resource sizes,
> sharing, and the like are the same questions with and without VMs,
> although VMs do change the basic resource allocation by their very nature.
>
> If anyone has benchmarks for various hardware platforms, that would be
> really helpful for this question.
>
> Please share any knowledge you find on this front - I'm curious.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-on-Physical-Server-vs-V
> M-tp4676715p4676763.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list
> archive at Nabble.com.
Re: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
Posted by Johan Edstrom <se...@gmail.com>.
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 <ar...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> 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 to one of the VMs?
> Or to dedicate some bandwidth on the NIC to one of the VMs?
>
> The bottom line is that, from an ActiveMQ perspective, there's nothing
> inheritenly different between a VM and real hardware. Resource sizes,
> sharing, and the like are the same questions with and without VMs, although
> VMs do change the basic resource allocation by their very nature.
>
> If anyone has benchmarks for various hardware platforms, that would be
> really helpful for this question.
>
> Please share any knowledge you find on this front - 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.
RE: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
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 to one of the VMs?
Or to dedicate some bandwidth on the NIC to one of the VMs?
The bottom line is that, from an ActiveMQ perspective, there's nothing
inheritenly different between a VM and real hardware. Resource sizes,
sharing, and the like are the same questions with and without VMs, although
VMs do change the basic resource allocation by their very nature.
If anyone has benchmarks for various hardware platforms, that would be
really helpful for this question.
Please share any knowledge you find on this front - 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.
RE: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
Posted by ba...@wellsfargo.com.
What about the use of zookeeper for levelDB replication? If you have a physical server, then you have a dedicated NIC that can handle the throughput by the use of quad ports (primary/secondary channeling) for improved performance. With a VM, you do not have a dedicated NIC.
-----Original Message-----
From: artnaseef [mailto:art@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 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-tp4676715p4676716.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
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-tp4676715p4676716.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.