# Logstash JMX sizing **URL:** \ **Category:** Logstash\ **Created:** [June 30, 2016, 9:20am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-sizing/54381 "2016-06-30T09:20:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![domisan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3e96dc/32.png) [@domisan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/domisan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 9:20am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-sizing/54381/1 "2016-06-30T09:20:00Z")
Hi, I've been using the Logstash JMX input succesfully for some time to monitor up to 10 Java JMX enabled processes with 1 Logstash process and nb\_thread set to 4 (default). However, I've recently configured a Logstash process which I gave a total of 88 Java JMX enabled processes to monitor. I immediately ran into the following error : "The time taken to retrieve metrics is more important than the retrieve\_interval time set. you must adapt nb\_thread, retrieve\_interval to the number of jvm/metrics you want to retrieve." I've been increasing the nb\_thread up until 50 now, but the error remains. I'm wondering: - Is 88 processes for one Logstash JMX (JMX + some filters + ES output) simply too much and should I be looking to have more Logstashes each handling less processes ? - Is this a Logstash limit or could it be an ES limit ? How could I detect if ES is too slow picking up the data in this case ? Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions. Dominik ---
**Author:** ![Vinicius\_Silva](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/vinicius_silva/32/15754_2.png) [@Vinicius\_Silva](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Vinicius_Silva)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-sizing/54381/2 "2017-02-21T17:48:54Z")
Hi did you get an answer for this ? I ran into the same problem today ---
**Author:** ![domisan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3e96dc/32.png) [@domisan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/domisan)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-sizing/54381/3 "2017-02-21T18:26:57Z")
Hi. No i never got any more feedback on this. In the meantime i did away with my idea to monitor those java processes with jmx for organisational reasons. I was running 2.4.1 and logstash tracing was limited. I just switched to 5.1.1 which seems to have interesting metrics in kibana now. Dominik ---
**Author:** ![k1ng87](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/k1ng87/32/88865_2.png) [@k1ng87](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/k1ng87)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-sizing/54381/4 "2017-04-07T03:02:16Z")
any luck on this? I'm getting the same issue on my end using 5.2 ---
**Author:** ![domisan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3e96dc/32.png) [@domisan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/domisan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 6:13am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-sizing/54381/5 "2017-04-07T06:13:47Z")
Hi, I never went back to JMX monitoring for large volumes of Java processes and my initial issues never got suitably resolved. D. ---
**Author:** ![k1ng87](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/k1ng87/32/88865_2.png) [@k1ng87](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/k1ng87)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-sizing/54381/6 "2017-04-07T15:27:26Z")
thanks for the response...I started a new thread on this here: [https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-input-slow/81531...hopefully](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-input-slow/81531...hopefully) I can find some new info as well.... ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 4:27am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logstash-jmx-sizing/54381/7 "2017-07-06T04:27:16Z")