[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Designing for maximum Artemis performance

Hi Mike,

I'm not looking at getting improved performance by having multiple slaves.
The use case I have is master-multiple backups as per

Our architecture is complex and we're using QPID dispatch routers at other
points within that. What I need to do is guarantee, for example, 600MB/s
throughput. If the simplest way to do that is a single server with three
masters on it, then I'll do that, if that guarantees 600MB/s. I doubt it
will work though.

If we need to spread the load and have 3x 200MB/s throughput across 3
servers then I'll do that. But I'll have multiple producers and consumers
connecting to those 3 instances at any point in time. By doing so, I'm
assuming that for the most part, Artemis can achieve 600MB/s across the 3
servers. If one of those servers / AZ dies for a short period of time, I'm
comfortable with having 2 servers running - with 1 server having 2 masters
and 1 server with 1 master - and only having ~400MB/s performance. But the
end goal is always trying to run @ 600MB/s across 3 servers split across 3
AZ. That way the applications connecting to Artemis can survive a server/AZ
failure, with a diminished level of performance (i.e. the ~400MB/s for a
small window of time). The only way I see to achieve that is live-backup
groups and running failback. However, it seems failback is not supported in
that scenario, hence my questions from the original post.

I don't understand what you mean by a cluster with multiple masters? Do you
mean a live-live-live cluster?


Sent from: