You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by magellings <ma...@qg.com> on 2010/11/18 16:06:16 UTC
ActiveMQ 5.4.1 slower than ActiveMQ 5.2???
Hi.
We're testing out ActiveMQ 5.4.1 and it is much slower than ActiveMQ 5.2.
In our test case, with v5.2 we were able to process about 520,000 messages
in about 9 hrs but with ActiveMQ 5.4.1 it takes 18hrs to process 21,000
messages. So processing 520,000 messages would take days.
Are there any default configurations that may be different between these two
versions causing the extra slowness? Any bugs fixed in between versions
(e.g. producer flow control) that could be causing the poor performance?
If anyone has any ideas on why ActiveMQ 5.4.1 is slower than ActiveMQ 5.2
that would be great!
Thanks
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-4-1-slower-than-ActiveMQ-5-2-tp3048866p3048866.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: ActiveMQ 5.4.1 slower than ActiveMQ 5.2???
Posted by magellings <ma...@qg.com>.
Thanks Tim! :)
I was hoping there was a more generalized list of breaking changes.
Something included with the specific version. Jumping through all the
issues out there would be quite tedious, especially when moving from
pre-v1.2 to v1.4. This is especially true if we are talking the broker
instead of the NMS provider.
Breaking changes at design/compile time are much different then hidden
breaking changes like these. If anything it probably would have been best
to keep the previous failover options working and backwards compatible. I
know there's a fine line there though....
Does that make sense?
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-4-1-slower-than-ActiveMQ-5-2-tp3048866p3049657.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: ActiveMQ 5.4.1 slower than ActiveMQ 5.2???
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@fusesource.com>.
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 13:12 -0800, magellings wrote:
> Found the culprit!!! Failover transport options for the NMS provider changed
> to require a "transport" prefix. This appears to have been a breaking
> change from an early version of the provider.
>
> This:
>
> ?AsyncConnect=true
>
> now has to be this:
>
> ?transport.AsyncConnect=true
>
> Otherwise, with .NET, if the first host is the slave it takes about 20s
> before the socket connection attempt times out and it moves on to the next
> host in the list. AsyncConnect tries to connect to all the hosts at once.
>
> Speaking of breaking changes, how are they communicated to developers? This
> change also affected reconnect behavior. So for example, the *Reconnect*
> options now require the transport prefix too.
>
> &transport.MaxReconnectAttempts=6&transport.ReconnectDelay=20&transport.UseExponentialBackoff=false
I believe this was documented in this issue:
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQNET-274
Regards
--
Tim Bish
------------
FuseSource
Email: tim.bish@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: tabish121
Blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: ActiveMQ 5.4.1 slower than ActiveMQ 5.2???
Posted by magellings <ma...@qg.com>.
Found the culprit!!! Failover transport options for the NMS provider changed
to require a "transport" prefix. This appears to have been a breaking
change from an early version of the provider.
This:
?AsyncConnect=true
now has to be this:
?transport.AsyncConnect=true
Otherwise, with .NET, if the first host is the slave it takes about 20s
before the socket connection attempt times out and it moves on to the next
host in the list. AsyncConnect tries to connect to all the hosts at once.
Speaking of breaking changes, how are they communicated to developers? This
change also affected reconnect behavior. So for example, the *Reconnect*
options now require the transport prefix too.
&transport.MaxReconnectAttempts=6&transport.ReconnectDelay=20&transport.UseExponentialBackoff=false
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-4-1-slower-than-ActiveMQ-5-2-tp3048866p3049590.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: ActiveMQ 5.4.1 slower than ActiveMQ 5.2???
Posted by magellings <ma...@qg.com>.
Those 10000s should be 1000s. Sorry :)
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-4-1-slower-than-ActiveMQ-5-2-tp3048866p3048967.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: ActiveMQ 5.4.1 slower than ActiveMQ 5.2???
Posted by magellings <ma...@qg.com>.
Here is a our scenario (P= producer, C=consumer, BrKR = broker, t=topic,
vt=virtual topic)
| |
P1 -- vt1 --> | | -- t1 (durable), vt1 ----> C1 ---- t2 ----> BrKR
1
P2 -- t1 --> | |
P3 -- t1 --> |BrKR 1| -- t1 (durable), t5 (durable) --> C2 -- t3 -->
P4 -- t2 --> | |
BrKR 2 --- t3 (durable), t4 ---> C4
P5 -- t2 --> | | --- t1, t2 ------> C3 --- t4 -------------->
P6 -- t5 --> | |
| | ---- vt1, t5 (durable) ---> C5 -- t2 -->
BrKR 1
* First producer (P1) sends 10000 msgs to “VirtualTopic.t1”
* Two producers (P2/P3) send 10000 msgs to t1.
* Two producers (P4/P5) send 10000 msgs to t2.
* One producer (P6) sends 10000 msgs to t5.
As the consumers then process the messages they also produce messages on
various topics.
We are using JDBC persistence, but we also were using it with our testing of
ActiveMQ 5.2.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-4-1-slower-than-ActiveMQ-5-2-tp3048866p3048914.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: ActiveMQ 5.4.1 slower than ActiveMQ 5.2???
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 18 November 2010 15:06, magellings <ma...@qg.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We're testing out ActiveMQ 5.4.1 and it is much slower than ActiveMQ 5.2.
> In our test case, with v5.2 we were able to process about 520,000 messages
> in about 9 hrs but with ActiveMQ 5.4.1 it takes 18hrs to process 21,000
> messages.
Thats very slow. Thats barely 1000 messages an hour; ActiveMQ
typically can typically do a 1000 or so a *second* when running on a
reasonably new laptop, so its about 3000X too slow :)
Could you give us any idea what your test case is doing?
--
James
-------
FuseSource
Email: james@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: jstrachan
Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration