From activemq-users-return-6070-apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org Tue Dec 05 17:08:32 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 79302 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2006 17:08:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Dec 2006 17:08:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 23025 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2006 17:08:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 23013 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2006 17:08:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 23004 invoked by uid 99); 5 Dec 2006 17:08:40 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:08:40 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender) Received: from [72.21.53.35] (HELO talk.nabble.com) (72.21.53.35) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:08:27 -0800 Received: from [72.21.53.38] (helo=jubjub.nabble.com) by talk.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Grdm3-0004YQ-Bz for activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:08:07 -0800 Message-ID: <7703463.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:08:07 -0800 (PST) From: zephyr451 To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Synchronous Messaging Performance Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: mgray@unica.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I am having a problem with synchronous messaging performance. I created a test case similar to the RequesterTool.java and ConsumerTool.java wherein I create a request and then block waiting for a response. The response is being waited for using receive() rather than an onMessage() handler; in case that matters. The producer and consumer are running on two separate machines connected via a single switch. When I configure the above scenario using a single producer (in it's own thread) and a single consumer. I measure about 9.9 request/responses per second. This occurs with virtually no load on either CPU. Also I ran a thread monitoring tool and, if it means anything, I noticed on the producer that most of the time was spent blocked on edu.emory.mathcs.backport.java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue$Node When I configure my test case to use two producers each running in it's own thread, with a single consumer. I measure ~490 request/responses per second with about 70% CPU load on each machine. The message broker is running in a separate JVM on the producer machine. I did try setting the URL option wireFormat.tcpNoDelayEnabled to true, but that made no difference in the behavior. Configuration Notes: Producer Machine: Single CPU WIndows 2003 Server, 2.0gb RAM, Java 1.5.0_09-b03 Consumer Machine: Linux Red Hat 4 Enterprise, 1.0gb RAM Java 1.5.0_09-b03 Any suggestions folks have would be greatly appreciated. I made an effort to track down all the synchronous tuning information folks have posted, but I could have missed something. Regards, Michael -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Synchronous-Messaging-Performance-Question-tf2762926.html#a7703463 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.