tough to say given the unknowns about your setup, but here are a couple of things to consider...
-for kahadb, set enableJournalDiskSyncs to false to get much better throughput -try fewer consumer threads...100 is a lot and you generally have diminished/negative results with larger thread counts -tune your CachingConnectionFactory (notably the sessionCacheSize should be increased from the default)...that said, beware of using this with polling consumers connections (see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5916638/autoreconnect-problem-with-activemq-and-cachingconnectionfactory ) -alternatively, try using the AMQ PooledConnectionFactory and see if you get better performance -see this thread on AMQ performance: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7463415/activemq-performance-gotchas-and-precautions -Ben On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Xenofon Papadopoulos < xenofon.papadopou...@upstreamsystems.com> wrote: > Sorry in advance if I should have posted that in ActiveMQ list, but here is > our case. > We are running the same test with two different setups: > > Setup 1: > ------------ > We are using a single ActiveMQ broker and a single Camel with the routes: > > from( "jetty://http://..."; ).inOnly( "activemq:queue:queue2" ) > > from("activemq:queue:queue2?maxConcurrentConsumers=100").bean( myProcessor, > "delay" ) > > The activeMQ component uses > a org.springframework.jms.connection.CachingConnectionFactory > > myProcess.delay() delays for 200 ms > > > Setup 2: > ------------ > We are using two ActiveMQ brokers and a single Camel with the routes: > > from( "jetty://http://..."; ).inOnly( "activemq1:queue:queue1" ) > > from( > "activemq1:queue:queue1?maxConcurrentConsumers=100").inOnly( > "activemq2:queue:queue2" > ) > > from("activemq2:queue:queue2?maxConcurrentConsumers=100").bean( > myProcessor, "delay" ) > > Both activeMQ components use their > own org.springframework.jms.connection.CachingConnectionFactory > ------------------------ > > All ActiveMQ brokers are identical, with: > > - kahadb > - <policyEntry queue=">" queuePrefetch="20" producerFlowControl="false" > optimizedDispatch="true" useCache="true"> > - <memoryUsage limit="4 gb"/> > - <transportConnector name="openwire" uri="tcp://0.0.0.0:xxxx"/> > > We test the setup by sending http requests from jmeter with 40 threads and > 1200 tps filter. We monitor the enqueue and dequeue rates of all the > queues, and notice that: > > Setup 1: > ------------ > queue2 enqueue: ~900 tps > queue2 dequeue: ~50 tps > > > Setup 2: > ------------ > queue1 enqueue: ~1200 tps > queue1 dequeue: ~1200 tps > queue2 enqueue: ~1200 tps > queue2 dequeue: ~150 tps > > This means that the 2nd setup causes the brokers to behave much better and > gives us a much higher throughput for our processor. > How can this be explained? Is there any configuration that will let us > achieve the same performance with a single broker? > > Thank you > Xenofon >
