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: surprising performance tuning result with activemq 4.0.1
Date Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:08:06 GMT
On 10/11/06, Jamie McCrindle <jamiemccrindle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> > Am wondering if you're hitting a slightly different issue though - of
> > the RAM / gc impact of using the journal causing pauses versus the
> > much simpler write to JDBC
>
> Could be. The test cases run from pretty small to pretty large and they all
> seem to have the same results. I'm doing the tests on my dev box but
> hopefully we'll get a chance to do more on a box that matches our production
> scenario a little better (remote sql server, dedicated box, lots of memory)
> and I'll see what the numbers look like between them and get them back to
> you.
>
> > BTW it'd be interesting to see the performance if you tried kaha
> > instead of JDBC, just to get an idea of relative speed
>
> Will do as soon as we move to 4.1 (I assume it's only available in 4.1) and
> get back to you with the results. That said, as soon as 4.1 goes live, we're
> going to move to Shared JDBC Master / Slave which is why I was trying to get
> an idea of what the performance of pure JDBC was like.

Yeah - its a very cool option :)

Thanks for the heads up - I was just nosy to find out kaha v JDBC with
SQLServer :)
-- 

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

Mime
View raw message