Hmm, I'd want to look a bit closer at the network stack -- I've observed on other projects NICs off loading heavily onto the CPU at higher push rates (see Freed-up CPU cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_offload_engine).
-Jamie On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote: > What ideally should happen is that under high load the network should > be the bottleneck. But right now CPU is the bottleneck. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:53 AM, James Carman > <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >> Is the expected behavior that even under high load AMQ would only be >> using one core/CPU, or less than it could/should be in some way? >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thank you for the links - I'll try setting this up on my test lab. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jamie >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> you can also use the producer/consumer examples from a distro. >>>> Last time I was trying to saturate a network I uses some of the scripts at >>>> https://github.com/gtully/broker-run/blob/master/scripts/clients.sh >>>> >>>> I have not been in there for a while but you may find it useful to run >>>> parallel load over multiple destinations. >>>> >>>> On 27 March 2015 at 10:14, Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> It was mentioned on another thread that ActiveMQ has hard challenges >>>>> with CPU core/thread scaling - I was wondering if there was a test >>>>> case/script published some where that shows this issue occurring? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Jamie > > > > -- > Hiram Chirino > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. > hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
