activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bdv <bart.ki.de...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How good is ActiveMQ supposed to perform?
Date Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:28:48 GMT
Thank you for your quick reply, I do appreciate it.

I ran the testsuite again with 4 simultaneous threads (meaning 4
connections, sessions, producers, consumers), and these were the results:

*****************
REPORT
*****************
35.985847s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize:
2048|Transacted|PERSISTENT|AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE
35.440556s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize:
2048|Transacted|PERSISTENT|CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE
35.457222s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize:
2048|Transacted|PERSISTENT|DUPS_OK_ACKNOWLEDGE
35.507576s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize:
2048|Transacted|PERSISTENT|SESSION_TRANSACTED
70.415115s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize:
2048|Transacted|NON_PERSISTENT|AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE
70.42604s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize:
2048|Transacted|NON_PERSISTENT|CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE
71.32817s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize:
2048|Transacted|NON_PERSISTENT|DUPS_OK_ACKNOWLEDGE
70.65203s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize:
2048|Transacted|NON_PERSISTENT|SESSION_TRANSACTED
*0.762125s *-> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize: 2048|Not
transacted|PERSISTENT|AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE
*0.5094472s *-> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize: 2048|Not
transacted|PERSISTENT|CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE
*0.48527578s *-> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize: 2048|Not
transacted|PERSISTENT|DUPS_OK_ACKNOWLEDGE
0.0s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize: 2048|Not
transacted|PERSISTENT|SESSION_TRANSACTED
0.32700574s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize: 2048|Not
transacted|NON_PERSISTENT|AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE
0.13212825s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize: 2048|Not
transacted|NON_PERSISTENT|CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE
0.124347255s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize: 2048|Not
transacted|NON_PERSISTENT|DUPS_OK_ACKNOWLEDGE
0.0s -> Msgcnt: 2500|Msgsize: 2048|Not
transacted|NON_PERSISTENT|SESSION_TRANSACTED

Like you stated, a difference would be noted in transacted mode. However,
what I didn't expect was the increase in time it suffered when just
persisting. I suppose this is the disk sync bottleneck you mentioned?

Considering we are using a SSD in this case, I didn't really expect there to
be any bottleneck?

--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-good-is-ActiveMQ-supposed-to-perform-tp4653343p4653346.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message