Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=KeKskRlwM4Z66I+UHgUx7eUCCH/UWrFwuYMG/jHf9SXmTI+oqUGbyPrZsE84rQOENnwI+uB8nTt09sqJOb00Qa+SZsWkfwIa6UcmQKUjxnawtIoV2IxlUvNHrWrvwQM4a6h+CNZykiyZOoZoIO1XOHTUO6ZlorY2vfs17Bp0c3s=
  ;
Message-ID: <20060423142548.19475.qmail@web38909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: reza aliakbary <r_aliakbary@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: activemq-3.2.2 vs activemq-4.0-M4 performance comparsion
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <1A687CAE-0892-4EEE-93F4-82A749582C07@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1513725775-1145802348=:18357"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

--0-1513725775-1145802348=:18357
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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 <rajdavies@gmail.com> 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 1�/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.
--0-1513725775-1145802348=:18357--