You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> on 2025/02/19 11:33:31 UTC
Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Hi,
Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably need to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
Regards,
William Crowell
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
I agree with François 40M messages a day is a drop in the bucket for a modern server to handle running ActiveMQ Classic.
> On Feb 19, 2025, at 12:27 PM, Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>
> From my side, I have customers that are using ActiveMQ Classic for heavy workload and with the right tuning and hardware setting it works very well so I cannot see why you should migrate to Artemis to make it work.
>
> regards,
>
> François
>
> Le 19/02/2025 à 17:49, William Crowell a écrit :
>> Justin,
>>
>> I have not tried that. I am trying to push management to use Artemis instead of Classic because I think Artemis will perform better for their heavy workload.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> William Crowell
>>
>> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 11:48 AM
>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
>> Have you tried using your OpenWire client with Artemis? If so, what did you
>> find?
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:05 AM William Crowell
>> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Justin,
>>>
>>> It would be OpenWire.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> William Crowell
>>>
>>> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:56 AM
>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
>>> Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the OpenWire
>>> protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
>>>
>>> In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
>>> to Artemis and everything will "just work."
>>>
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
>>> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Justin and Matt,
>>>>
>>>> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
>>>> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years
>>> ago,
>>>> but they are so old.
>>>>
>>>> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
>>>> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
>>>> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
>>>> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
>>>> switch to Artemis.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> William Crowell
>>>>
>>>> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
>>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
>>>> I agree with Matt 100%.
>>>>
>>>> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation
>>> in
>>>> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
>>>> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
>>>> lowest possible latency.
>>>>
>>>> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
>>>> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road
>>> hardware
>>>> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
>>>> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
>>>> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
>>>> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
>>>> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
>>>> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi William-
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
>>>>> different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
>>>>> connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
>>>>> connections handling 1B messages per day.
>>>>>
>>>>> ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
>>>> very
>>>>> large heaps on a single broker.
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the
>>> messages
>>>>> will be processed!
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matt Pavlovich
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
>>>>> <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
>>>>> ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD
>>> type I
>>>>> will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any
>>> recent
>>>>> benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
>>>> need
>>>>> to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
>>>>> broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
>>>>> produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
>>>>> more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> William Crowell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
>>> confidential.
>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>>>>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>>>> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
>>> know
>>>> the content is safe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>>> If
>>>> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>>>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>>> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
>>> the content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
>>> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Francois Papon <fp...@apache.org>.
Hi William,
From my side, I have customers that are using ActiveMQ Classic for
heavy workload and with the right tuning and hardware setting it works
very well so I cannot see why you should migrate to Artemis to make it work.
regards,
François
Le 19/02/2025 à 17:49, William Crowell a écrit :
> Justin,
>
> I have not tried that. I am trying to push management to use Artemis instead of Classic because I think Artemis will perform better for their heavy workload.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 11:48 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> Have you tried using your OpenWire client with Artemis? If so, what did you
> find?
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:05 AM William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Justin,
>>
>> It would be OpenWire.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> William Crowell
>>
>> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:56 AM
>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
>> Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the OpenWire
>> protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
>>
>> In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
>> to Artemis and everything will "just work."
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
>> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Justin and Matt,
>>>
>>> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
>>> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years
>> ago,
>>> but they are so old.
>>>
>>> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
>>> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
>>> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
>>> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
>>> switch to Artemis.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> William Crowell
>>>
>>> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
>>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
>>> I agree with Matt 100%.
>>>
>>> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation
>> in
>>> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
>>> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
>>> lowest possible latency.
>>>
>>> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
>>> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road
>> hardware
>>> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
>>> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
>>> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
>>> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
>>> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
>>> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
>>>
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Hi William-
>>>>
>>>> This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
>>>> different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
>>>> connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
>>>> connections handling 1B messages per day.
>>>>
>>>> ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
>>> very
>>>> large heaps on a single broker.
>>>>
>>>> That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the
>> messages
>>>> will be processed!
>>>>
>>>> -Matt Pavlovich
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
>>>> <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
>>>> ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD
>> type I
>>>> will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any
>> recent
>>>> benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
>>> need
>>>> to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
>>>> broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
>>>> produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
>>>> more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> William Crowell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
>> confidential.
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>>>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>>>
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>>> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
>> know
>>> the content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>> If
>>> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
>> the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>
>>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID>.
Justin,
I have not tried that. I am trying to push management to use Artemis instead of Classic because I think Artemis will perform better for their heavy workload.
Regards,
William Crowell
From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 11:48 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Have you tried using your OpenWire client with Artemis? If so, what did you
find?
Justin
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:05 AM William Crowell
<WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
> Justin,
>
> It would be OpenWire.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:56 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the OpenWire
> protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
>
> In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
> to Artemis and everything will "just work."
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Justin and Matt,
> >
> > That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> > current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years
> ago,
> > but they are so old.
> >
> > The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> > day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> > really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> > clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> > switch to Artemis.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > William Crowell
> >
> > From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> > I agree with Matt 100%.
> >
> > Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation
> in
> > performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
> > high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> > lowest possible latency.
> >
> > My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> > performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road
> hardware
> > and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> > accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> > network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> > application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> > non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> > enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi William-
> > >
> > > This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> > > different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> > > connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> > > connections handling 1B messages per day.
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> > very
> > > large heaps on a single broker.
> > >
> > > That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the
> messages
> > > will be processed!
> > >
> > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> > > <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> > > ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD
> type I
> > > will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any
> recent
> > > benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> > need
> > > to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> > > broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> > > produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> > > more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > William Crowell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> confidential.
> > > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If
> > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
Have you tried using your OpenWire client with Artemis? If so, what did you
find?
Justin
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:05 AM William Crowell
<WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
> Justin,
>
> It would be OpenWire.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:56 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the OpenWire
> protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
>
> In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
> to Artemis and everything will "just work."
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Justin and Matt,
> >
> > That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> > current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years
> ago,
> > but they are so old.
> >
> > The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> > day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> > really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> > clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> > switch to Artemis.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > William Crowell
> >
> > From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> > I agree with Matt 100%.
> >
> > Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation
> in
> > performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
> > high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> > lowest possible latency.
> >
> > My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> > performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road
> hardware
> > and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> > accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> > network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> > application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> > non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> > enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi William-
> > >
> > > This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> > > different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> > > connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> > > connections handling 1B messages per day.
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> > very
> > > large heaps on a single broker.
> > >
> > > That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the
> messages
> > > will be processed!
> > >
> > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> > > <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> > > ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD
> type I
> > > will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any
> recent
> > > benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> > need
> > > to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> > > broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> > > produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> > > more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > William Crowell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> confidential.
> > > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If
> > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID>.
Matt,
Thank you and that is very valuable information.
Regards,
William Crowell
From: Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 11:31 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Hi William—
Keep in mind that ActiveMQ Classic will continue to advance OpenWire versions for new features and capabilities. The current roadmap includes plans to finish out JMS 2.0 support, etc. Artemis will always need to consume those changes, and some Artemis distributions are dropping support for OpenWire.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Feb 19, 2025, at 10:02 AM, William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Justin,
>
> It would be OpenWire.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:56 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the OpenWire
> protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
>
> In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
> to Artemis and everything will "just work."
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Justin and Matt,
>>
>> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
>> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years ago,
>> but they are so old.
>>
>> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
>> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
>> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
>> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
>> switch to Artemis.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> William Crowell
>>
>> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
>> I agree with Matt 100%.
>>
>> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation in
>> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
>> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
>> lowest possible latency.
>>
>> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
>> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road hardware
>> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
>> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
>> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
>> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
>> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
>> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi William-
>>>
>>> This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
>>> different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
>>> connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
>>> connections handling 1B messages per day.
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
>> very
>>> large heaps on a single broker.
>>>
>>> That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages
>>> will be processed!
>>>
>>> -Matt Pavlovich
>>>
>>>> On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
>>> <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
>>> ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I
>>> will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent
>>> benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
>> need
>>> to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
>>> broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
>>> produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
>>> more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> William Crowell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
>> the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>
>>
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Factivemq.apache.org%2Fcontact&data=05%7C02%7CWCrowell%40perforce.com%7C83ce3588f4ec4cf70c1308dd5102c9ea%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C638755794616281002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y6mgsaGYpheBYYUTzdgdY5cEjwNZ36GXUr61uVDJN2Q%3D&reserved=0<https://activemq.apache.org/contact>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
There are no plans to drop OpenWire support from Artemis here at Apache. I
expect Artemis will support any changes to OpenWire for the foreseeable
future.
As I see it, what happens in other Artemis distributions is immaterial to
what happens here at Apache.
Justin
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:31 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi William—
>
> Keep in mind that ActiveMQ Classic will continue to advance OpenWire
> versions for new features and capabilities. The current roadmap includes
> plans to finish out JMS 2.0 support, etc. Artemis will always need to
> consume those changes, and some Artemis distributions are dropping support
> for OpenWire.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Feb 19, 2025, at 10:02 AM, William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > Justin,
> >
> > It would be OpenWire.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > William Crowell
> >
> > From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:56 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> > Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the
> OpenWire
> > protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
> >
> > In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
> > to Artemis and everything will "just work."
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
> > <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Justin and Matt,
> >>
> >> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> >> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years
> ago,
> >> but they are so old.
> >>
> >> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> >> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> >> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> >> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> >> switch to Artemis.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> William Crowell
> >>
> >> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> >> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> >> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ
> Classic?
> >> I agree with Matt 100%.
> >>
> >> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation
> in
> >> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with
> relatively
> >> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> >> lowest possible latency.
> >>
> >> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> >> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road
> hardware
> >> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> >> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> >> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> >> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> >> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> >> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
> >>
> >> Good luck!
> >>
> >>
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi William-
> >>>
> >>> This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> >>> different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> >>> connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> >>> connections handling 1B messages per day.
> >>>
> >>> ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> >> very
> >>> large heaps on a single broker.
> >>>
> >>> That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the
> messages
> >>> will be processed!
> >>>
> >>> -Matt Pavlovich
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> >>> <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> >>> ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD
> type I
> >>> will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any
> recent
> >>> benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> >> need
> >>> to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> >>> broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> >>> produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> >>> more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> William Crowell
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> confidential.
> >>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> >>> attachments and notify us immediately.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> >> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know
> >> the content is safe.
> >>
> >>
> >> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If
> >> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> >> attachments and notify us immediately.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
>
>
>
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi William—
Keep in mind that ActiveMQ Classic will continue to advance OpenWire versions for new features and capabilities. The current roadmap includes plans to finish out JMS 2.0 support, etc. Artemis will always need to consume those changes, and some Artemis distributions are dropping support for OpenWire.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On Feb 19, 2025, at 10:02 AM, William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Justin,
>
> It would be OpenWire.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:56 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the OpenWire
> protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
>
> In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
> to Artemis and everything will "just work."
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Justin and Matt,
>>
>> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
>> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years ago,
>> but they are so old.
>>
>> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
>> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
>> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
>> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
>> switch to Artemis.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> William Crowell
>>
>> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
>> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
>> I agree with Matt 100%.
>>
>> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation in
>> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
>> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
>> lowest possible latency.
>>
>> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
>> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road hardware
>> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
>> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
>> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
>> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
>> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
>> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi William-
>>>
>>> This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
>>> different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
>>> connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
>>> connections handling 1B messages per day.
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
>> very
>>> large heaps on a single broker.
>>>
>>> That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages
>>> will be processed!
>>>
>>> -Matt Pavlovich
>>>
>>>> On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
>>> <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
>>> ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I
>>> will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent
>>> benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
>> need
>>> to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
>>> broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
>>> produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
>>> more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> William Crowell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
>> the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>> attachments and notify us immediately.
>>
>>
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@activemq.apache.org
For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID>.
Justin,
It would be OpenWire.
Regards,
William Crowell
From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:56 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the OpenWire
protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
to Artemis and everything will "just work."
Justin
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
<WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
> Justin and Matt,
>
> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years ago,
> but they are so old.
>
> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> switch to Artemis.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> I agree with Matt 100%.
>
> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation in
> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> lowest possible latency.
>
> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road hardware
> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi William-
> >
> > This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> > different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> > connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> > connections handling 1B messages per day.
> >
> > ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> very
> > large heaps on a single broker.
> >
> > That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages
> > will be processed!
> >
> > -Matt Pavlovich
> >
> > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> > <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> > ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I
> > will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent
> > benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> need
> > to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> > broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> > produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> > more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > William Crowell
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
Which "Classic library" are you referring to? Artemis supports the OpenWire
protocol used by the JMS client implementation shipped with Classic.
In many cases you can simply point existing OpenWire clients from Classic
to Artemis and everything will "just work."
Justin
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:50 AM William Crowell
<WC...@perforce.com.invalid> wrote:
> Justin and Matt,
>
> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years ago,
> but they are so old.
>
> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> switch to Artemis.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> I agree with Matt 100%.
>
> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation in
> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> lowest possible latency.
>
> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road hardware
> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi William-
> >
> > This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> > different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> > connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> > connections handling 1B messages per day.
> >
> > ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> very
> > large heaps on a single broker.
> >
> > That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages
> > will be processed!
> >
> > -Matt Pavlovich
> >
> > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> > <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> > ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I
> > will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent
> > benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> need
> > to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> > broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> > produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> > more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > William Crowell
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Christian Kurmann <ck...@tere.tech>.
I have run the same tests with slight variations of messages on AMD and on
INTEL based systems with different clock speeds but all => 3,5GHz
To be honest this used to be a much bigger issue a few years ago but with
modern servers its less important (however I did make sure we for fast
performance cores as opposed to huge numbers of parallel threads -> CPU are
no longer the issue on these systems its not always a problem to get enough
RAM :)
one Ceph was running on local enterprise SSD (on bare metal worker nodes)
The other on locally attached Purestorage SAN. The disks are fast but ceph
is really slow.
However both ActiveMQ Classic dealt with this surprisingly well.
I checked with direct local disks and performance was much faster but the
tradeoff for being able to run these in the kubernetes cluster and have a
way to shift them around when required meant I kept it on Ceph.
Please note that on Openshift Kubernetes at least we still have to manually
intervene to let the stateful sets and storage work shift to new servers
nicely, in case of hardware issues
Feel free to contact me directly if you have more specific questions
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 20:00, William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Really good information. What was the clock speed on your cores? What
> was your CEPH running on? SSD?
>
> What did you use to performance test? I found a Maven plugin and JMeter
> scripts.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Christian Kurmann <ck...@tere.tech>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 1:55 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> [You don't often get email from cku@tere.tech. Learn why this is
> important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> I run approximately 15 million messages per day on 8 cores with 16GB memory
> using ActiveMQ classic.
> I unfortunately have peaks and while most messages are 1kb I have some that
> are >2mb.
>
> I have done lots of performance testing to manage this and found that
> Artemis unfortunately was not usable for my requirements. The way it deals
> with constraining resources when things got close to limits meant that
> processing speed worsened causing more backlog and more reconnects etc. In
> practical terms it deadlocks with a very difficult manual path to recover
> without data loss.
> For me ActiveMQ Classic managed the same load constraints 10 - 15% faster
> and without crashes.
> For performance testing I ran approx 50million messages per day.
>
> To increase performance I run two parallel Active MQ classic. In my case
> the system did not scale with more CPU and Memory due to being constrained
> on the disk IO (running in Kubernetes with storage on slow but safe CEPH)
>
> In short. 40 million sounds like it should work fine on quite small
> hardware but I recommend you test and push above 40 to see if you hit
> limits. And check if you can logically split traffic into two instances
> (keeping clear of any clustering)
>
> Regards Chris
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:50, William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Justin and Matt,
> >
> > That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> > current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years
> ago,
> > but they are so old.
> >
> > The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> > day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> > really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> > clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> > switch to Artemis.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > William Crowell
> >
> > From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> > I agree with Matt 100%.
> >
> > Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation
> in
> > performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
> > high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> > lowest possible latency.
> >
> > My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> > performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road
> hardware
> > and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> > accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> > network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> > application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> > non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> > enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi William-
> > >
> > > This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> > > different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> > > connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> > > connections handling 1B messages per day.
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> > very
> > > large heaps on a single broker.
> > >
> > > That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the
> messages
> > > will be processed!
> > >
> > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> > > <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> > > ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD
> type I
> > > will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any
> recent
> > > benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> > need
> > > to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> > > broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> > > produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> > > more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > William Crowell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> confidential.
> > > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If
> > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Christian Kurmann <ck...@tere.tech>.
Ahh regarding testing -> I built a little Java microservice that simulated
my specific messages and size distribution while also ensuring realistic
amounts of uniqueness and load on specific queues and topics.
Else the tests simply aren’t realistic enough to find and reproduce
problems or be certain they don’t happen
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 20:00, William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Really good information. What was the clock speed on your cores? What
> was your CEPH running on? SSD?
>
> What did you use to performance test? I found a Maven plugin and JMeter
> scripts.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Christian Kurmann <ck...@tere.tech>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 1:55 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> [You don't often get email from cku@tere.tech. Learn why this is
> important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> I run approximately 15 million messages per day on 8 cores with 16GB memory
> using ActiveMQ classic.
> I unfortunately have peaks and while most messages are 1kb I have some that
> are >2mb.
>
> I have done lots of performance testing to manage this and found that
> Artemis unfortunately was not usable for my requirements. The way it deals
> with constraining resources when things got close to limits meant that
> processing speed worsened causing more backlog and more reconnects etc. In
> practical terms it deadlocks with a very difficult manual path to recover
> without data loss.
> For me ActiveMQ Classic managed the same load constraints 10 - 15% faster
> and without crashes.
> For performance testing I ran approx 50million messages per day.
>
> To increase performance I run two parallel Active MQ classic. In my case
> the system did not scale with more CPU and Memory due to being constrained
> on the disk IO (running in Kubernetes with storage on slow but safe CEPH)
>
> In short. 40 million sounds like it should work fine on quite small
> hardware but I recommend you test and push above 40 to see if you hit
> limits. And check if you can logically split traffic into two instances
> (keeping clear of any clustering)
>
> Regards Chris
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:50, William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Justin and Matt,
> >
> > That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> > current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years
> ago,
> > but they are so old.
> >
> > The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> > day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> > really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> > clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> > switch to Artemis.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > William Crowell
> >
> > From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> > To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> > I agree with Matt 100%.
> >
> > Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation
> in
> > performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
> > high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> > lowest possible latency.
> >
> > My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> > performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road
> hardware
> > and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> > accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> > network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> > application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> > non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> > enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi William-
> > >
> > > This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> > > different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> > > connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> > > connections handling 1B messages per day.
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> > very
> > > large heaps on a single broker.
> > >
> > > That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the
> messages
> > > will be processed!
> > >
> > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> > > <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> > > ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD
> type I
> > > will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any
> recent
> > > benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> > need
> > > to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> > > broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> > > produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> > > more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > William Crowell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or
> confidential.
> > > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If
> > you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID>.
Christian,
Really good information. What was the clock speed on your cores? What was your CEPH running on? SSD?
What did you use to performance test? I found a Maven plugin and JMeter scripts.
Regards,
William Crowell
From: Christian Kurmann <ck...@tere.tech>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 1:55 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
[You don't often get email from cku@tere.tech. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I run approximately 15 million messages per day on 8 cores with 16GB memory
using ActiveMQ classic.
I unfortunately have peaks and while most messages are 1kb I have some that
are >2mb.
I have done lots of performance testing to manage this and found that
Artemis unfortunately was not usable for my requirements. The way it deals
with constraining resources when things got close to limits meant that
processing speed worsened causing more backlog and more reconnects etc. In
practical terms it deadlocks with a very difficult manual path to recover
without data loss.
For me ActiveMQ Classic managed the same load constraints 10 - 15% faster
and without crashes.
For performance testing I ran approx 50million messages per day.
To increase performance I run two parallel Active MQ classic. In my case
the system did not scale with more CPU and Memory due to being constrained
on the disk IO (running in Kubernetes with storage on slow but safe CEPH)
In short. 40 million sounds like it should work fine on quite small
hardware but I recommend you test and push above 40 to see if you hit
limits. And check if you can logically split traffic into two instances
(keeping clear of any clustering)
Regards Chris
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:50, William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Justin and Matt,
>
> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years ago,
> but they are so old.
>
> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> switch to Artemis.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> I agree with Matt 100%.
>
> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation in
> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> lowest possible latency.
>
> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road hardware
> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi William-
> >
> > This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> > different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> > connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> > connections handling 1B messages per day.
> >
> > ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> very
> > large heaps on a single broker.
> >
> > That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages
> > will be processed!
> >
> > -Matt Pavlovich
> >
> > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> > <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> > ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I
> > will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent
> > benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> need
> > to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> > broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> > produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> > more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > William Crowell
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Christian Kurmann <ck...@tere.tech>.
I run approximately 15 million messages per day on 8 cores with 16GB memory
using ActiveMQ classic.
I unfortunately have peaks and while most messages are 1kb I have some that
are >2mb.
I have done lots of performance testing to manage this and found that
Artemis unfortunately was not usable for my requirements. The way it deals
with constraining resources when things got close to limits meant that
processing speed worsened causing more backlog and more reconnects etc. In
practical terms it deadlocks with a very difficult manual path to recover
without data loss.
For me ActiveMQ Classic managed the same load constraints 10 - 15% faster
and without crashes.
For performance testing I ran approx 50million messages per day.
To increase performance I run two parallel Active MQ classic. In my case
the system did not scale with more CPU and Memory due to being constrained
on the disk IO (running in Kubernetes with storage on slow but safe CEPH)
In short. 40 million sounds like it should work fine on quite small
hardware but I recommend you test and push above 40 to see if you hit
limits. And check if you can logically split traffic into two instances
(keeping clear of any clustering)
Regards Chris
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:50, William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Justin and Matt,
>
> That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any
> current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years ago,
> but they are so old.
>
> The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a
> day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some
> really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our
> clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to
> switch to Artemis.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
> From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
> I agree with Matt 100%.
>
> Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation in
> performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
> high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
> lowest possible latency.
>
> My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
> performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road hardware
> and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
> accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
> network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
> application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
> non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
> enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi William-
> >
> > This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> > different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> > connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> > connections handling 1B messages per day.
> >
> > ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to
> very
> > large heaps on a single broker.
> >
> > That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages
> > will be processed!
> >
> > -Matt Pavlovich
> >
> > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> > <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> > ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I
> > will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent
> > benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably
> need
> > to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> > broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> > produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> > more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > William Crowell
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> > attachments and notify us immediately.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID>.
Justin and Matt,
That’s kind of what I thought. I just wanted to see if there were any current benchmarks for Classic. I think there were at one-point years ago, but they are so old.
The goal right now to is produce and consume up to 40 million messages a day. Each message would be 400-1000 bytes. I think we would need some really beefy hardware for Classic to support this kind of traffic. Our clients are coded against Classic library, so it would be difficult to switch to Artemis.
Regards,
William Crowell
From: Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 10:37 AM
To: users@activemq.apache.org <us...@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
I agree with Matt 100%.
Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation in
performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
lowest possible latency.
My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road hardware
and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
Good luck!
Justin
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi William-
>
> This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> connections handling 1B messages per day.
>
> ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to very
> large heaps on a single broker.
>
> That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages
> will be processed!
>
> -Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I
> will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent
> benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably need
> to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > William Crowell
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
>
>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
I agree with Matt 100%.
Aside from wide variation in the workloads there is also wide variation in
performance goals. Some folks don't mind a heavy workload with relatively
high latency. Some folks want the heaviest possible workload with the
lowest possible latency.
My recommendation would be to start by defining your workload and your
performance goals. Then start with some kind of middle-of-the-road hardware
and do performance benchmarking with your specific workload. Then adjust
accordingly. Maybe you need more CPU, more RAM, faster disk, faster
network, etc. If you can't get that then maybe you can modify your
application's behavior (e.g. batching work into transactions, using
non-durable vs. durable messages, etc.). Or maybe everything is "good
enough" and you can move on to other tasks.
Good luck!
Justin
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi William-
>
> This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address
> different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of
> connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred
> connections handling 1B messages per day.
>
> ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to very
> large heaps on a single broker.
>
> That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages
> will be processed!
>
> -Matt Pavlovich
>
> > On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell
> <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for
> ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I
> will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent
> benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably need
> to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the
> broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages
> produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the
> more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > William Crowell
> >
> >
> > This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us immediately.
> >
>
>
Re: Are there any hardware recommendations for ActiveMQ Classic?
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi William-
This is a mission impossible question. The hardware required to address different workloads can vary wildly. For example — thousands of connections handling a few million messages per day vs a hundred connections handling 1B messages per day.
ActiveMQ can be embedded down to run on a Raspberry Pi or scale up to very large heaps on a single broker.
That being said— the faster the disk you can get, the faster the messages will be processed!
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Feb 19, 2025, at 5:33 AM, William Crowell <WC...@perforce.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Are there any hardware recommendations (not minimum requirements) for ActiveMQ Classic? I am trying to determine what CPU, RAM, and SSD type I will need when sizing out a production environment. Are there any recent benchmark tests for a particular hardware setup? What I will probably need to do is put together an environment and run JMeter tests against the broker to see if it meets the requirements for the number of messages produced/consumed that my application requires. I am assuming that the more producers/consumers I have then the more CPU cores I will need.
>
> Regards,
>
> William Crowell
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
>