You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by DanielR <ro...@gmail.com> on 2009/03/31 22:56:34 UTC
Camel routing poor performance vs VirtualDestinations and Topics
Hi.
Im getting very slow performance using camel based routing.
I have 1 producer sending messages to QUEUE.COLOR and then ActiveMQ
duplicate the messages to QUEUE.BLUE and QUEUE.RED (except for topics...).
Is this normal?
My tests:
1. Camel Route defined in XML
2. Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin
3. VirtualDestination Routing
4. Topics
Test N° 1 2 3 4
Body Size
128B 703 763 6377 10590
512B 670 692 5872 8143
1KB 628 635 5037 4749
2KB 566 557 2376 2641
*messages/second
Camel Route defined in XML Code
<camelContext id="camel"
xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
<route>
<from uri="activemq:QUEUE.COLOR" />
<to uri="activemq:QUEUE.RED" />
<to uri="activemq:QUEUE.BLUE" />
</route>
</camelContext>
Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin Code
class MyRouteBuilder extends RouteBuilder {
@Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("activemq:queue:QUEUE.COLOR").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.RED").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.BLUE");
}
}
VirtualDestination Code
<destinationInterceptors>
<virtualDestinationInterceptor>
<virtualDestinations>
<compositeQueue name="QUEUE.COLOR">
<forwardTo>
<queue
physicalName="QUEUE.RED" />
<queue
physicalName="QUEUE.BLUE" />
</forwardTo>
</compositeQueue>
</virtualDestinations>
</virtualDestinationInterceptor>
</destinationInterceptors>
Graphic with results attached.
--
Regards,
Daniel Romero P.
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22812467/activemq-routing.jpg
activemq-routing.jpg
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-routing-poor-performance-vs-VirtualDestinations-and-Topics-tp22812467p22812467.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Camel routing poor performance vs VirtualDestinations and Topics
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Oh and async sending...
2009/3/31 James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>:
> Also configuring the activemq component to use vm transport (as it
> defaults to tcp://locahost:61616) would probably help too
>
> 2009/3/31 DanielR <ro...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'm using AMQ 5.2 (apache-activemq-5.2.0-bin.tar).
>> The camel code is in a java class of my own package
>> (cl.niclabs.activemq.camel), loaded at the startup in the AMQ's xml config
>> with this code:
>>
>> <camelContext id="camel"
>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>> <package>cl.niclabs.activemq.camel</package>
>> </camelContext>
>>
>> You can download my configs here:
>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22815567/activemq-tests.tar.gz
>> activemq-tests.tar.gz
>>
>>
>> So, you say that using JMS transactions should rise the camel routing
>> performance near the VirtualDestination one, that's all?
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>
>>> Which version of ActiveMQ/Camel/Spring are you using? Is the camel
>>> code inside the broker? Do you have any specific spring configuration
>>> for the ActiveMQ component?
>>>
>>> BTW the out of the box won't be using transactions, so you'll be doing
>>> a request/reply with the broker (I presume using TCP unless you've
>>> some custom config) waiting for the send to hit disk for each
>>> destination before committing the consume. So using a JMS transaction
>>> should speed that up hugely.
>>>
>>> However fast we get the camel code; topics and virtual queues are
>>> always gonna be faster; since on the broker side its just moving an in
>>> memory message to multiple destinations in a single thread without the
>>> overhead of going through the JMS client API.
>>>
>>> Having said that - if you are testing like for like (e.g. using VM
>>> transport, using transactions & using async sends) it should get
>>> close.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/3/31 DanielR <ro...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Im getting very slow performance using camel based routing.
>>>>
>>>> I have 1 producer sending messages to QUEUE.COLOR and then ActiveMQ
>>>> duplicate the messages to QUEUE.BLUE and QUEUE.RED (except for
>>>> topics...).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this normal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My tests:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Camel Route defined in XML
>>>> 2. Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin
>>>> 3. VirtualDestination Routing
>>>> 4. Topics
>>>>
>>>> Test N° 1 2 3 4
>>>> Body Size
>>>> 128B 703 763 6377 10590
>>>> 512B 670 692 5872 8143
>>>> 1KB 628 635 5037 4749
>>>> 2KB 566 557 2376 2641
>>>>
>>>> *messages/second
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Camel Route defined in XML Code
>>>>
>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>> <route>
>>>> <from uri="activemq:QUEUE.COLOR" />
>>>> <to uri="activemq:QUEUE.RED" />
>>>> <to uri="activemq:QUEUE.BLUE" />
>>>> </route>
>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin Code
>>>>
>>>> class MyRouteBuilder extends RouteBuilder {
>>>>
>>>> @Override
>>>> public void configure() throws Exception {
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> from("activemq:queue:QUEUE.COLOR").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.RED").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.BLUE");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> VirtualDestination Code
>>>>
>>>> <destinationInterceptors>
>>>> <virtualDestinationInterceptor>
>>>> <virtualDestinations>
>>>> <compositeQueue
>>>> name="QUEUE.COLOR">
>>>> <forwardTo>
>>>> <queue
>>>> physicalName="QUEUE.RED" />
>>>> <queue
>>>> physicalName="QUEUE.BLUE" />
>>>> </forwardTo>
>>>> </compositeQueue>
>>>> </virtualDestinations>
>>>> </virtualDestinationInterceptor>
>>>> </destinationInterceptors>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Graphic with results attached.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Daniel Romero P.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22812467/activemq-routing.jpg
>>>> activemq-routing.jpg
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Camel-routing-poor-performance-vs-VirtualDestinations-and-Topics-tp22812467p22812467.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> James
>>> -------
>>> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> Open Source Integration
>>> http://fusesource.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-routing-poor-performance-vs-VirtualDestinations-and-Topics-tp22812467p22815567.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
> Open Source Integration
> http://fusesource.com/
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
Re: Camel routing poor performance vs VirtualDestinations and Topics
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Also configuring the activemq component to use vm transport (as it
defaults to tcp://locahost:61616) would probably help too
2009/3/31 DanielR <ro...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi.
>
> I'm using AMQ 5.2 (apache-activemq-5.2.0-bin.tar).
> The camel code is in a java class of my own package
> (cl.niclabs.activemq.camel), loaded at the startup in the AMQ's xml config
> with this code:
>
> <camelContext id="camel"
> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
> <package>cl.niclabs.activemq.camel</package>
> </camelContext>
>
> You can download my configs here:
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22815567/activemq-tests.tar.gz
> activemq-tests.tar.gz
>
>
> So, you say that using JMS transactions should rise the camel routing
> performance near the VirtualDestination one, that's all?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
>
>
>
> James.Strachan wrote:
>>
>> Which version of ActiveMQ/Camel/Spring are you using? Is the camel
>> code inside the broker? Do you have any specific spring configuration
>> for the ActiveMQ component?
>>
>> BTW the out of the box won't be using transactions, so you'll be doing
>> a request/reply with the broker (I presume using TCP unless you've
>> some custom config) waiting for the send to hit disk for each
>> destination before committing the consume. So using a JMS transaction
>> should speed that up hugely.
>>
>> However fast we get the camel code; topics and virtual queues are
>> always gonna be faster; since on the broker side its just moving an in
>> memory message to multiple destinations in a single thread without the
>> overhead of going through the JMS client API.
>>
>> Having said that - if you are testing like for like (e.g. using VM
>> transport, using transactions & using async sends) it should get
>> close.
>>
>>
>> 2009/3/31 DanielR <ro...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>>
>>> Im getting very slow performance using camel based routing.
>>>
>>> I have 1 producer sending messages to QUEUE.COLOR and then ActiveMQ
>>> duplicate the messages to QUEUE.BLUE and QUEUE.RED (except for
>>> topics...).
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this normal?
>>>
>>>
>>> My tests:
>>>
>>> 1. Camel Route defined in XML
>>> 2. Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin
>>> 3. VirtualDestination Routing
>>> 4. Topics
>>>
>>> Test N° 1 2 3 4
>>> Body Size
>>> 128B 703 763 6377 10590
>>> 512B 670 692 5872 8143
>>> 1KB 628 635 5037 4749
>>> 2KB 566 557 2376 2641
>>>
>>> *messages/second
>>>
>>>
>>> Camel Route defined in XML Code
>>>
>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>> <route>
>>> <from uri="activemq:QUEUE.COLOR" />
>>> <to uri="activemq:QUEUE.RED" />
>>> <to uri="activemq:QUEUE.BLUE" />
>>> </route>
>>> </camelContext>
>>>
>>>
>>> Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin Code
>>>
>>> class MyRouteBuilder extends RouteBuilder {
>>>
>>> @Override
>>> public void configure() throws Exception {
>>>
>>>
>>> from("activemq:queue:QUEUE.COLOR").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.RED").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.BLUE");
>>> }
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> VirtualDestination Code
>>>
>>> <destinationInterceptors>
>>> <virtualDestinationInterceptor>
>>> <virtualDestinations>
>>> <compositeQueue
>>> name="QUEUE.COLOR">
>>> <forwardTo>
>>> <queue
>>> physicalName="QUEUE.RED" />
>>> <queue
>>> physicalName="QUEUE.BLUE" />
>>> </forwardTo>
>>> </compositeQueue>
>>> </virtualDestinations>
>>> </virtualDestinationInterceptor>
>>> </destinationInterceptors>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Graphic with results attached.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Daniel Romero P.
>>>
>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22812467/activemq-routing.jpg
>>> activemq-routing.jpg
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Camel-routing-poor-performance-vs-VirtualDestinations-and-Topics-tp22812467p22812467.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James
>> -------
>> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Open Source Integration
>> http://fusesource.com/
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-routing-poor-performance-vs-VirtualDestinations-and-Topics-tp22812467p22815567.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
Re: Camel routing poor performance vs VirtualDestinations and
Topics
Posted by DanielR <ro...@gmail.com>.
Hi.
I'm using AMQ 5.2 (apache-activemq-5.2.0-bin.tar).
The camel code is in a java class of my own package
(cl.niclabs.activemq.camel), loaded at the startup in the AMQ's xml config
with this code:
<camelContext id="camel"
xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
<package>cl.niclabs.activemq.camel</package>
</camelContext>
You can download my configs here:
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22815567/activemq-tests.tar.gz
activemq-tests.tar.gz
So, you say that using JMS transactions should rise the camel routing
performance near the VirtualDestination one, that's all?
Thanks for your time.
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> Which version of ActiveMQ/Camel/Spring are you using? Is the camel
> code inside the broker? Do you have any specific spring configuration
> for the ActiveMQ component?
>
> BTW the out of the box won't be using transactions, so you'll be doing
> a request/reply with the broker (I presume using TCP unless you've
> some custom config) waiting for the send to hit disk for each
> destination before committing the consume. So using a JMS transaction
> should speed that up hugely.
>
> However fast we get the camel code; topics and virtual queues are
> always gonna be faster; since on the broker side its just moving an in
> memory message to multiple destinations in a single thread without the
> overhead of going through the JMS client API.
>
> Having said that - if you are testing like for like (e.g. using VM
> transport, using transactions & using async sends) it should get
> close.
>
>
> 2009/3/31 DanielR <ro...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>>
>> Im getting very slow performance using camel based routing.
>>
>> I have 1 producer sending messages to QUEUE.COLOR and then ActiveMQ
>> duplicate the messages to QUEUE.BLUE and QUEUE.RED (except for
>> topics...).
>>
>>
>> Is this normal?
>>
>>
>> My tests:
>>
>> 1. Camel Route defined in XML
>> 2. Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin
>> 3. VirtualDestination Routing
>> 4. Topics
>>
>> Test N° 1 2 3 4
>> Body Size
>> 128B 703 763 6377 10590
>> 512B 670 692 5872 8143
>> 1KB 628 635 5037 4749
>> 2KB 566 557 2376 2641
>>
>> *messages/second
>>
>>
>> Camel Route defined in XML Code
>>
>> <camelContext id="camel"
>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>> <route>
>> <from uri="activemq:QUEUE.COLOR" />
>> <to uri="activemq:QUEUE.RED" />
>> <to uri="activemq:QUEUE.BLUE" />
>> </route>
>> </camelContext>
>>
>>
>> Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin Code
>>
>> class MyRouteBuilder extends RouteBuilder {
>>
>> @Override
>> public void configure() throws Exception {
>>
>>
>> from("activemq:queue:QUEUE.COLOR").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.RED").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.BLUE");
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> VirtualDestination Code
>>
>> <destinationInterceptors>
>> <virtualDestinationInterceptor>
>> <virtualDestinations>
>> <compositeQueue
>> name="QUEUE.COLOR">
>> <forwardTo>
>> <queue
>> physicalName="QUEUE.RED" />
>> <queue
>> physicalName="QUEUE.BLUE" />
>> </forwardTo>
>> </compositeQueue>
>> </virtualDestinations>
>> </virtualDestinationInterceptor>
>> </destinationInterceptors>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Graphic with results attached.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Daniel Romero P.
>>
>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22812467/activemq-routing.jpg
>> activemq-routing.jpg
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Camel-routing-poor-performance-vs-VirtualDestinations-and-Topics-tp22812467p22812467.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>
> Open Source Integration
> http://fusesource.com/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-routing-poor-performance-vs-VirtualDestinations-and-Topics-tp22812467p22815567.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Camel routing poor performance vs VirtualDestinations and Topics
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Which version of ActiveMQ/Camel/Spring are you using? Is the camel
code inside the broker? Do you have any specific spring configuration
for the ActiveMQ component?
BTW the out of the box won't be using transactions, so you'll be doing
a request/reply with the broker (I presume using TCP unless you've
some custom config) waiting for the send to hit disk for each
destination before committing the consume. So using a JMS transaction
should speed that up hugely.
However fast we get the camel code; topics and virtual queues are
always gonna be faster; since on the broker side its just moving an in
memory message to multiple destinations in a single thread without the
overhead of going through the JMS client API.
Having said that - if you are testing like for like (e.g. using VM
transport, using transactions & using async sends) it should get
close.
2009/3/31 DanielR <ro...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi.
>
>
> Im getting very slow performance using camel based routing.
>
> I have 1 producer sending messages to QUEUE.COLOR and then ActiveMQ
> duplicate the messages to QUEUE.BLUE and QUEUE.RED (except for topics...).
>
>
> Is this normal?
>
>
> My tests:
>
> 1. Camel Route defined in XML
> 2. Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin
> 3. VirtualDestination Routing
> 4. Topics
>
> Test N° 1 2 3 4
> Body Size
> 128B 703 763 6377 10590
> 512B 670 692 5872 8143
> 1KB 628 635 5037 4749
> 2KB 566 557 2376 2641
>
> *messages/second
>
>
> Camel Route defined in XML Code
>
> <camelContext id="camel"
> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
> <route>
> <from uri="activemq:QUEUE.COLOR" />
> <to uri="activemq:QUEUE.RED" />
> <to uri="activemq:QUEUE.BLUE" />
> </route>
> </camelContext>
>
>
> Camel Route defined in RouteBuilder Plugin Code
>
> class MyRouteBuilder extends RouteBuilder {
>
> @Override
> public void configure() throws Exception {
>
>
> from("activemq:queue:QUEUE.COLOR").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.RED").to("activemq:queue:QUEUE.BLUE");
> }
>
> }
>
> VirtualDestination Code
>
> <destinationInterceptors>
> <virtualDestinationInterceptor>
> <virtualDestinations>
> <compositeQueue name="QUEUE.COLOR">
> <forwardTo>
> <queue
> physicalName="QUEUE.RED" />
> <queue
> physicalName="QUEUE.BLUE" />
> </forwardTo>
> </compositeQueue>
> </virtualDestinations>
> </virtualDestinationInterceptor>
> </destinationInterceptors>
>
>
>
>
> Graphic with results attached.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Daniel Romero P.
>
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p22812467/activemq-routing.jpg
> activemq-routing.jpg
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-routing-poor-performance-vs-VirtualDestinations-and-Topics-tp22812467p22812467.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/