If you are using ZooKeeper to handle the new features of levelDB on v5.9, I would think a dedicated NIC would increase performance if this is not shared on the physical server. I wasn't aware that a dedicated NIC could be utilized on a VM. I thought this was shared with all resources on the VM space, no?
Regards, Barry Barnett WMQ Enterprise Services & Solutions Open Queuing Services & Solutions Wells Fargo Cell: 704-564-5501 -----Original Message----- From: Johan Edstrom [mailto:seij...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:58 PM To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: ActiveMQ on Physical Server vs. VM Like with pretty much any Java app, you end up running a VM in a VM..... Performance on IO, CPU sharing and so on will be impacted. That doesn't mean that you couldn't scale in different ways with more VM instances instead. On Jan 24, 2014, at 6:37 AM, artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote: > Interesting question (dedicatd NIC) - that's more a VM question than > an ActiveMQ question. With sharing the NIC with other load, the issue > becomes, what other loads are sharing and how much? Very much a > question outside of ActiveMQ itself. > > Is it possible for a VM host to dedicate a physical NIC to one of the VMs? > Or to dedicate some bandwidth on the NIC to one of the VMs? > > The bottom line is that, from an ActiveMQ perspective, there's nothing > inheritenly different between a VM and real hardware. Resource sizes, > sharing, and the like are the same questions with and without VMs, > although VMs do change the basic resource allocation by their very nature. > > If anyone has benchmarks for various hardware platforms, that would be > really helpful for this question. > > Please share any knowledge you find on this front - I'm curious. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-on-Physical-Server-vs-V > M-tp4676715p4676763.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list > archive at Nabble.com.
