Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 61638 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2009 16:24:25 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Dec 2009 16:24:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 88025 invoked by uid 500); 11 Dec 2009 16:24:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 87980 invoked by uid 500); 11 Dec 2009 16:24:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 87970 invoked by uid 99); 11 Dec 2009 16:24:25 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:24:25 +0000 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 (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:24:16 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NJ8Hb-0003zF-Ib for users@activemq.apache.org; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:23:55 -0800 Message-ID: <26747184.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:23:55 -0800 (PST) From: Duro To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: low persistent messaging performance using kahadb MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: durokuruc@zoznam.sk X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, i've tested kahadb and kahaPersistenceAdapter using same simple test conditions i.e. - persistent queue - 3 consumers - 1 producer - 25 kb message size (10 000 msgs) according this, kahadb has troughput 22 msgs/s while kahaPersistenceAdapter 333 msgs/s. Similar difference observed using kahadb with amq 5.3, amq 5.4 snapshot and 5.3.1 snapshot. Why is that? Is it possible to somehow configure kahadb (or message producer) to get better results? Duro -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/low-persistent-messaging-performance-using-kahadb-tp26747184p26747184.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.