activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Separate project 4 (micro)benchmarks
Date Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:42:16 GMT
It sounds this would be a better fit as a directory within Artemis.
I'm not sure it needs to be part of the main pom..

depending on how it grows we may find another place, but we could
start it there first, and if it later it becomes bigger we can pull it

For example we have the examples tree... this could be under
./examples/benchmarks... or at the same level as examples.


On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 6:45 AM, nigro_franz <> wrote:
> Hi guys!
> In the last months I've produced a lot of different tests and
> microbenchmarks (using  JMH
> <>   to do not get cheated
> by the JVM) to measure in isolation the Journal performances, garbage
> production of the Artemis's queues, encoding/decoding latencies, Netty's
> connector scaling...and I've noticed how it was really hard to find out the
> proper place where to put them without creating chaos and leaving on the
> Artemis project's tree a lot of "hybrid" module that mix what is necessary
> for the broker to work and what is something that exist solely to measure
> how much is performant in any of its parts...
> I suspect that the more Artemis will grow, the more there will be the need
> to have a well-structured (for the purpose) standalone project that uses and
> refers any single parts of Artemis that need to be benchmarked in isolation.
> This will improve the Artemis quality codebase; finally free from
> ever-growing code (& dependencies) that doesn't provide or test anything and
> the quality of the benchmarks too, that wouldn't be executed anymore "by
> hand" (producing unreliable results!) but with proper tools and environment.
> What do you think?
> P.S: I vote for JMH!!!!
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

Clebert Suconic

View raw message