A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#2I appreciate that some effort went into coding this benchmark but I don't understand no time was spent trying to optimise each MQ. You could even email the developers and ask for help since you're going to be publishing this as a comparative benchmark.
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#3Interesting results! In my testing, I came to a different conclusion.
Background: PHP and STOMP, with loads of several million messages per hour, ranging in size from 2-20Kb. Multiple processes enqueuing, and many more dequeuing. Tests performed about this time last year.
Out of ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ and Apollo:
ActiveMQ crashed constantly under load.
RabbitMQ could not enqueue/dequeue fast enough.
Apollo blew them all out of the water and, long-term, has proven extremely stable.
I must admit that haven't spent hours performance tuning. The results shown here, however, make me think I should go back and re-evaluate.
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#4>>"Except for big messages, RabbitMQ seems to be the best bet as it outperforms others by a factor of 3."
RabbitMQ? Does the OP mean to say ZeroMQ?
ZeroMQ leads every benchmark in the blog.
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#5I'm interested to see ZMQ being compared to the traditional brokers as I've been considering swapping from ActiveMQ. Although not surprised at it's results. It very much re-enforces the ideal of keeping software simple and barebones, rather than bloating it with stuff most people never use.
Mainly because I'm finding the latency from ActiveMQ is starting to affect my overall system latency. RabbitMQ was the next broker on my list to test, but ZMQ makes more sense (if you don't mind writing the broker part).
Background; I'm currently running a system which at peak runs with about 15 million messages per hour using ActiveMQ, with several producers and consumers on the same topic. Apart from speed, not had any issues with it.
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#6I'm interested to see ZMQ being compared to the traditional brokers as I've been considering swapping from ActiveMQ. Although not surprised at it's results. It very much re-enforces the ideal of keeping software simple and barebones, rather than bloating it with stuff most people never use. Mainly because I'm finding the latency from ActiveMQ is starting to affect my overall system latency. RabbitMQ was the next brok…
Background; I'm currently running a system which at peak runs with about 15 million messages per hour using ActiveMQ, with several producers and consumers on the same topic. Apart from speed, not had any issues with it.
ActiveMQ or ActiveMQ Apollo? Definitely give Apollo and try if you haven't, it's incredibly easy to drop it and requires very little configuration.
I'm processing similar peak levels with Apollo, and so far have been amazed at how well it handles things.
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#7>>"Except for big messages, RabbitMQ seems to be the best bet as it outperforms others by a factor of 3." RabbitMQ? Does the OP mean to say ZeroMQ? ZeroMQ leads every benchmark in the blog.
True, but it's in-memory only (there was no persistence with ZeroMQ in the given setup).
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#8>>"Except for big messages, RabbitMQ seems to be the best bet as it outperforms others by a factor of 3." RabbitMQ? Does the OP mean to say ZeroMQ? ZeroMQ leads every benchmark in the blog.
True, but it's in-memory only (there was no persistence with ZeroMQ in the given setup).
Then why even test ZeroMQ then?
If you plan to setup a benchmark test, and then decide to throw out the results (winner/ZeroMQ) because it doesn't produce the desired outcome you wanted ... then this benchmark is a joke to begin with.
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#9I'm interested to see ZMQ being compared to the traditional brokers as I've been considering swapping from ActiveMQ. Although not surprised at it's results. It very much re-enforces the ideal of keeping software simple and barebones, rather than bloating it with stuff most people never use. Mainly because I'm finding the latency from ActiveMQ is starting to affect my overall system latency. RabbitMQ was the next brok…
I would not use ZeroMQ for anything but the most non-critical queues. ZeroMQ is not persistent: if your server crashes you lose all your queue contents.
My current favorite is RabbitMQ. It has improved steadily over the years, performs pretty well and very easy to setup.
Re: A quick message queue benchmark: ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ, HornetQ, QPID, Apollo
#10I'm a bit sceptical of this, as RabbitMQ performance is very similar between transient and persistent. In my own tests, they were up to an order of magnitude different, even on an SSD.