Ah, I see. That's different from the impression I was initially getting from your post. In particular, our clients would be Java servlets, so we might not run into these issues. I am in the process of making some stress tests myself right now.
Hellweek wrote: > > Here is what I can say. > > With the exception of the issue that I have posted about here I can tell > you that I am very happy with the performance of ActiveMQ. > > As our applications depend on some for of MOM all of our applications use > a common MessagingLayer. As such it took very little time for us to > create this layer and instantly have our applications use it. > > I can tell you that the ActiveMQ is much faster then our existing MOM as > such I was very excited about the possible improvments to performance. > > I think the issue I am reporting here is more an issue with > Interoperability between C++ and C#. At least thats what it is looking > like. A problem has been opened for this issue. This is a very positive > sign. > > However, I can tell you that you should invest the time in exploring > ActiveMQ. > > > yg_cvg wrote: >> >> I am personally watching this thread with great interest, as we're >> considering using ActiveMQ for a big highly distributed network, but we >> have no idea how it would perform in such a setting. >> >> >> Hellweek wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I know what I am about to post will upset a few people, however I think >>> it is important that I document my experience with ActiveMQ in the hopes >>> that others like me can have an understanding of the issues that you >>> will face. >>> >>> A little history. >>> >>> I am not new to Open Source projects, have been involved in them and >>> have sponsored the use of open source for many years. >>> >>> I have been working with various message brokers for a few years. My >>> first experience was with TIBCO EMS. Needless to say I was very >>> impressed with the stability and functionality of this fine EMS. Next I >>> had the opportunity to work with Sonic EMS. Again I was impressed with >>> this product and was even happier with its low cost of ownership. >>> >>> Over the last 6 weeks it has been my job to evaluate for our Trading >>> firm an internal messaging system. We wanted to use a EMS solution for >>> dissemination of pricing data to our in-house applications as well as >>> external clients of ours. The messaging systems we are evaluating. >>> TIBCO EMS, MSMQ 3.0, SONIC EMS, ACTIVEMQ 4.1.1 or ActieMQ 5.0. >>> >>> How did each product fair? >>> 1. Tibco EMS no issues with any of the stress tests and performance >>> tests. >>> 2. MSMQ don't even get me started with this POS. >>> 3. SONIC EMS no issues with any of the stress tests and performance >>> tests. >>> 4. ActiveMQ can not make it past any stress tests. See issues below for >>> an understanding of what we saw. >>> >>> >>> I have watched ActiveMQ for well over 2 years and 2 years ago the >>> project was so filled with issues that I knew I would never be able to >>> recommend it to the owners of the company. 2 Years later and I was in >>> the position of trying ActiveMQ again and hoping that it would be >>> stable. >>> >>> I was very pleased to see that many of the issues I saw with ActiveMQ >>> had been resolved and was committed to giving ActiveMQ a chance at being >>> our EMS solution for the future. However, I can say after weeks of >>> testing ActiveMQ Is still not ready for production use by myself and the >>> firm I work for. If you have high message throughput with high number >>> of subscribers ActiveMQ is not well suited for your needs. >>> >>> Lets take some time to examine the issues. >>> >>> CPP ActiveMQ Client >>> 1. A fast producer with slow clients can and will take down the >>> producer. From what I have seen in testing a slow client can bring the >>> producer down and in some cases can bring the broker down. A >>> miss-behaved producer or client should never ever take the broker down. >>> >>> 2. A Producer that producers more then 200 messages per sec locks up the >>> Broker when the Broker has only one client connected. This one was the >>> biggest issue to accept and the one issue that caused us to say ActiveMQ >>> is not ready for a production environment. The most basic and simple >>> task of the Message Broker is not working as expected and makes the >>> ActiveMQ unusable in a environment where peak message Generation can >>> exceed 200 messages per second. To be honest we never even get close to >>> 100 messages as it seems we die after 50 messages are fired in the same >>> second. The only time I am able to have producers producing without >>> locking up or crashing is if I don't have any consumers listening. >>> Having a messaging system that works without consumers is not a valid >>> solution. >>> >>> Again important to note. As long as no consumers are connected I can >>> produce massive amounts of messages. Once you connect a client massive >>> issues start to happen. >>> >>> 3. Producers and consumers created on the same connection can cause >>> deadlocks. This is a major issue and the main solution is to not do >>> this. However, this is an unacceptable solution as it is my >>> understanding this is an acceptable practice. >>> >>> 4. A fast producer with a fast consumer leads to resource creep. I >>> don't want to say it is a memory leak because it is not a leak it is >>> just a very very slow release of the memory. I should not have to put >>> sleeps in a program just to insure that memory gets released correctly. >>> In my test I had to sleep for 20 MS between each message being sent to >>> keep the ActiveMQ consumer running. >>> >>> 5. Placing a breakpoint on the message listener on a consumer will cause >>> out of memory errors in the producer. Why me setting a breakpoint on a >>> consumer can cause the producer to throw an exception is unacceptable >>> and leads me to think that a slow consumer can and will take the broker >>> and or producer down. >>> >>> 6. Very confusing to determine what version of ActiveMQ will work with >>> what version of the client. Example ActiveMQ 5.0 was released this >>> week. However, no new client was released and no information on when >>> new client will be released. The CPP client just released a 2.1.3 >>> version that claims it should be paired with 4.1.1 of the ActiveMQ >>> broker. Where is the CPP client that is to work with the new features >>> of 5.0? >>> >>> With all the issues I have I will not be able to go to a production >>> environment with ActiveMQ, this is a shame as the people that have been >>> working this project are talented people and should be commended for the >>> work that has been done. >>> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-thoughts-tp14262131s2354p14302538.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
