activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: activemq-3.2.2 vs activemq-4.0-M4 performance comparsion
Date Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:04:13 GMT
Note that you still should get an error if the send fails in async
mode  - its just that you'll be notified in the ExceptionListener
rather than receiving an exception in the calling thread (which makes
it a bit hard to associate the message to the exception - I guess we
really should make sure that the exceptions we throw also have the
Message easily available).

On 4/24/06, Rob Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Reza,
>
> that's correct - it's a trade-off between performance and reliability
> - so in ActiveMQ 4.0 we opted for safety first.
>
> cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> On 24 Apr 2006, at 08:17, reza aliakbary wrote:
>
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> >   Yes, You are right. I changed the property and now the benchmark
> > performs quite fast with the snapshot version. But what would I
> > loose  if I set useAsyncSend = true? I think I get no exception if
> > a message  cannot be delivered, right?
> >
> >   Cheers,
> >   Reza
> >
> > Rob Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:  Hi Reza,
> >
> > this is good feedback - something that has changed between activemq
> > 3.x and 4.0 is that by default messages sent from a MessageProducer
> > now wait for a receipt from the message broker that the message has
> > been received. So a property you could set on your Connection Factory
> > is to set useAsyncSend = true.
> >
> > I'd be interested to know if this makes a difference for you.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > On 23 Apr 2006, at 15:25, reza aliakbary wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Rob, The current snapshot performs better than RC2 but still
> >> it is  too slower than 3.2.2 . With a benchmark in the same
> >> environment I got  the following times:
> >>   3.2.2 ----> 8 sec.
> >>   SNAPSHOT ----> 43 sec.
> >>   RC2 --- > 77 sec.
> >>
> >>   So you see the diffrence is a lot(8 vs 43).
> >>
> >>   Thanks,
> >>   Reza
> >>
> >> Rob Davies  wrote:  could you try the latest
> >> snapshot: http://cvs.apache.org/repository/
> >> incubator-activemq/distributions/  - I've only started  ActiveMQ 4.0
> >> has only started in the past week :)
> >>
> >> On 23 Apr 2006, at 08:06, reza aliakbary wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear James, I also tested with RC2 but it is still slow. We are
> >>> interested of the features you provided in version 4.0 but we
> >>> don't  want to loose performance. I hope you would reach to the
> >>> performance of  3.2.2 in next releases of 4.0 .
> >>>
> >>>   Cheers,
> >>>   Reza
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> James Strachan  wrote:  Which version of
> >>> 4.0 are you testing? FWIW we've only recently started
> >>> tuning 4.x heavily, certainly SVN HEAD is looking quite good.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/22/06, reza aliakbary  wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>>  I used a simple benchmark to compare the performance of 3.2.2 vs
> >>>> 4.0 . I
> >>>> suprised why 3.2.2 performs very better than 4.0, I thought I
> >>>> could be wrong
> >>>> or maybe my configuration has a problem but I couldn't find
> >>>> anything bad in
> >>>> configurations(I used default and without persistency). I have
> >>>> attached
> >>>> codes that I used. Please let me know why 3.2.2 performs better
> >>>> than 4.0.
> >>>> The benchmark works with a queue asynchronously.
> >>>>  Run the consumer to register consumers and them run the producer.
> >>>>
> >>>>  Best Regards,
> >>>>  Reza
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>> -------
> >>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------
> >>> Blab-away for as little as 1ยข/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using
> >>> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------
> >> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low  PC-to-Phone
> >> call rates.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low  PC-to-Phone
> > call rates.
>
>


--

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

Mime
View raw message