3 ms·
We use ActiveMQ (classic) because of the incredible console. Combine that with hawt.io and you get some extra functionality not included in the normal console.
by exabrial 4y ago
We use ActiveMQ (classic) because of the incredible console. Combine that with hawt.io and you get some extra functionality not included in the normal console.
I'm always surprised, even with the older version of ActiveMQ, what kind of throughput you can get, on modest hardware. A 1gb kvm with 1 cpu easily pushes 5000 msgs/second across a couple hundred topics and queues. Quite impressive and more than we need for our use case. ActiveMQ Artemis is supposed to scale even farther out.
- therealdrag0 4y agoSame. Ran a perf test recently. With two 1 core brokers I got 2000 rps with persistence and peaked at 12000 rps with non-persistence. We’ve also had similar issues as OP, except fixing it just came down to configuring the Java client to have 0 prefetch so that long jobs don’t block other msgs from being processed by other clients. Also using separate queues wide different workloads.
- knallfrosch 4y agoIt seems that OP's company doesn't really know anything about the job workload beforehand, as the jobs are created by their customers. Having different queues for short/long workloads might be impossible.