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/Lingo performance
Date Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:47:54 GMT
If the only change you made between the 200 and 4 times was move the
client to another box, then that drop is the latency overhead (and
context switching) cost of using real TCP rather than using the
loopback adapter.

You might find turning nagler on/off could help reduce latency with
TCP (i.e. do you wait for packets to be full or send 'em straight away
etc)

http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/configuring-wire-formats.html

(the tcpNoDelayEnabled option)


On 10/19/06, Bernhard2 <Bernhard.Wellhoefer@gaia-group.com> wrote:
>
> Hello James,
>
> > Are you running the broker in the same JVM as the server? That helps
> > reduce the latency
>
> First I had this scenario:
>
> Machine A: Lingo Server, Lingo Client and ActiveMQ in three JVMS
> => throughput 200 Lingo request per second
>
> Then I had this scenario:
>
> Machine A: Lingo Server and ActiveMQ in two JVMS
> Machine B: Lingo Client
> => throughput 4.5 Lingo request per second
>
> So running an own broker in the server JVM to reduce the latency is a good
> idea. But in both scenarios I had the Lingo server and ActiveMQ on the same
> machine and the decrease from 200 to 4 requests can not be a problem between
> server and ActiveMQ. Only the client moved to machine B. Do you agree?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bernhard
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Lingo-performance-tf2473875.html#a6899515
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 

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

Mime
View raw message