When to use persistence with Java Messaging and Queuing Systems

Question

I'm performing a trade study on (Java) Messaging & Queuing systems for an upcoming re-design of a back-end framework for a major web application (on Amazon's EC2 Cloud, x-large instances). I'm currently evaluating ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ.

The plan is to have 5 different queues, with one being a dead-letter queue. The number of messages sent per day will be anywhere between 40K and 400K. As I plan for the message content to be a pointer to an XML file location on a data store, I expect the messages to be about 64 bytes. However, for evaluation purposes, I would also like to consider sending raw XML in the messages, with an average file size of 3KB.

My main questions: When/how many messages should be persisted on a daily basis? Is it reasonable to persist all messages, considering the amounts I specified above? I know that persisting will decrease performance, perhaps by a lot. But, by not persisting, a lot of RAM is being used. What would some of you recommend?

Also, I know that there is a lot of information online regarding ActiveMQ (JMS) vs RabbitMQ (AMQP). I have done a ton of research and testing. It seems like either implementation would fit my needs. Considering the information that I provided above (file sizes and # of messages), can anyone point out a reason(s) to use a particular vendor that I may have missed?

Thanks!

Answer 1

When/how many messages should be persisted on a daily basis? Is it reasonable to persist all messages, considering the amounts I specified above?

JMS persistence doesn't replace a database, it should be considered a short-lived buffer between producers and consumers of data. that said, the volume/size of messages you mention won't tax the persistence adapters on any modern JMS system (configured properly anyways) and can be used to buffer messages for extended durations as necessary (just use a reliable message store architecture)

I know that persisting will decrease performance, perhaps by a lot. But, by not persisting, a lot of RAM is being used. What would some of you recommend?

in my experience, enabling message persistence isn't a significant performance hit and is almost always done to guarantee messages. for most applications, the processes upstream (producers) or downstream (consumers) end up being the bottlenecks (especially database I/O)...not JMS persistence stores

Also, I know that there is a lot of information online regarding ActiveMQ (JMS) vs RabbitMQ (AMQP). I have done a ton of research and testing. It seems like either implementation would fit my needs. Considering the information that I provided above (file sizes and # of messages), can anyone point out a reason(s) to use a particular vendor that I may have missed?

I have successfully used ActiveMQ on many projects for both low and high volume messaging. I'd recommend using it along with a routing engine like Apache Camel to streamline integration and complex routing patterns

Answer 2

A messaging system must be used as a temporary storage. Applications should be designed to pull the messages as soon as possible. The more number of messages lesser the performance. If you are pulling of messages then there will be a better performance as well as lesser memory usage. Whether persistent or not memory will still be used as the messages are kept in memory for better performance and will backed up on disk if a message type is persistent only.

The decision on message persistence depends on how critical a message is and does it require to survive a messaging provider restart.

You may want to have a look at IBM WebSphere MQ. It can meet your requirements. It has JMS as well as proprietary APIs for developing applications.