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=KVFpuQEwjGjCTxDlMPTr1PjMlhLEMCZ1cWiF8l2wpvToIKWxaU8sPUjmSE4DMTuYNLc3bY/darJpMkCvr3K+fSJ9HicRJO2oEL47PjJkxG3Fgv98VwMV0+i8lkANnWhiBST9KsyWp0lB81yCAbZX/JAYi69JQILqWJnaUWb1cnE=
  ;
Message-ID: <20060424071739.84100.qmail@web38906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:17:38 -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: <18CC71C0-39D3-4835-AFBF-43552A15F9A3@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1034912487-1145863058=:82410"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

--0-1034912487-1145863058=:82410
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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 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.


---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger�s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
--0-1034912487-1145863058=:82410--