Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <45ACA44D.8020206@qos.ch>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:09:17 +0100
From: Sebastien Pennec <sebastien@qos.ch>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b1 (Windows/20061206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Topic and Queue performances
References: <45ABB0A5.2000902@qos.ch>
 <ec6e67fd0701151034n68c2e889g8590159c15192c64@mail.gmail.com>
 <45ABD2ED.4040007@qos.ch>
 <ec6e67fd0701151139o185c48wd8f79fd99ce4d5d4@mail.gmail.com>
 <CC7F77E3-4E6F-410F-953F-ED1AA2C084AE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC7F77E3-4E6F-410F-953F-ED1AA2C084AE@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello Rob,

Then that is certainly why I was observing such different results. Although my setup 
(client code and environment) where very similar, the messages were handled in a 
rather different manner on the server side.

I've tried to disable persistence by using the persistant="false" attribute in the 
broker element. I now have Queue results that are very close to the Topic results, at 
around 0.25 milliseconds.

James and Rob, thanks for your help :)

Cheers,

S�bastien

Rob Davies wrote:
> The big difference between topics and queues is that for queues, if the 
> messages have a persistent delivery mode, they are always added to the 
> message store. This is only true for topics if a durable subscriber 
> exists and is interested in that topic.
> 
> By default, the message store used is the journal, which uses a jdbc 
> store for its long term storage.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Rob
> 
> On 15 Jan 2007, at 19:39, James Strachan wrote:
> 
>> Are you positive you are using like for like - i.e. persistent
>> messages for both queues and topics?
>>
>> You might also wanna try out using our maven based performance test
>> harness which makes it easy to test out your environment - it might be
>> worth seeing if your JMS code gets wildly different results which
>> could indicate some issue in how you are using JMS...
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-performance-module-users-manual.html 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/15/07, Sebastien Pennec <sebastien@qos.ch> wrote:
>>> Hello James,
>>>
>>> I understand very well that there are many factors that influence 
>>> such tests. In my
>>> setup, I've tried to make the environment for both Queue and Topic as 
>>> similar as
>>> possible, not to have the best results possible but to have results 
>>> that can be compared.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, the default config for Active MQ does not use JDBC, 
>>> or does it?
>>> Also, on my tests, it's the Queue that is 40 times slower that the 
>>> Topic.
>>>
>>> My goal was more to have your opinion on the fact that, using the 
>>> same environment,
>>> sending messages to a Queue is *much* slower that sending to a Topic. 
>>> Does that make
>>> you thing that I've done something wrong, or is it something that can 
>>> be expected?
>>>
>>> I am currently checking out the source code of ActiveMQ to run some 
>>> tests as
>>> described on your website[1] so I'll see how far my figures are from 
>>> your tests.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the answer,
>>>
>>> S�bastien
>>>
>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/jmeter-performance-tests.html
>>>
>>>
>>> James Strachan wrote:
>>> > In general, it all depends
>>> >
>>> > http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/how-fast-is-activemq.html
>>> >
>>> > if using JDBC persistence, there is a bit more work required to store
>>> > a topic message than a queue (since topics need to maintain a list of
>>> > messages each consumer requires, whereas a queue is logically
>>> > equivalent to a single row insert). Also obviously, if there are more
>>> > than one consumer, then the broker has more work to do with topics.
>>> >
>>> > But like many things, it all depends on what you are doing, how you're
>>> > doing it and what your environment is. YMMV
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 1/15/07, Sebastien Pennec <sebastien@qos.ch> wrote:
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> I checked on the list archive, but couldn't find the answer to my
>>> >> current situation,
>>> >> so here I am :)
>>> >>
>>> >> I've launched an ActiveMQ server on my machine, with the default
>>> >> configuration stuff.
>>> >> The only thing I've added is the jndi.properties file that I've found
>>> >> in the
>>> >> documentation.
>>> >>
>>> >> This jndi config file helps create an example Queue and an example
>>> >> Topic. I can
>>> >> easily connect message producers and consumers to the Queue and 
>>> Topic.
>>> >> The server, as
>>> >> well as the two message producers and the two message consumers, are
>>> >> on my local machine.
>>> >>
>>> >> When I send messages to the Topic, I observe that the time it 
>>> takes to
>>> >> send the
>>> >> message is about 0.25 milliseconds. When I send messages to the 
>>> Queue,
>>> >> the figure
>>> >> goes up to 10 milliseconds. These figures are the average time 
>>> that is
>>> >> observed when
>>> >> sending 10'000 messages.
>>> >> They are modified by the presence or absence of a consumer: it takes
>>> >> approximately
>>> >> 10% less time when there is no consumer.
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it a normal behavior? I expected the performance between Topic and
>>> >> Queue to be
>>> >> closer than that.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for your help,
>>> >>
>>> >> S�bastien
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> S�bastien Pennec
>>> >> sebastien@qos.ch
>>> >>
>>> >> Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework
>>> >> for Java.
>>> >> http://logback.qos.ch/
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> S�bastien Pennec
>>> sebastien@qos.ch
>>>
>>> Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework 
>>> for Java.
>>> http://logback.qos.ch/
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> James
>> -------
>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> 
> 

-- 
S�bastien Pennec
sebastien@qos.ch

Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch/