Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-camel-user-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 60646 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2009 15:21:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jan 2009 15:21:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 61901 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2009 15:21:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-camel-user-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 61886 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2009 15:21:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact camel-user-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list camel-user@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 61875 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jan 2009 15:21:18 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:21:18 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.0 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.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; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:21:10 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LMl4U-0001dd-7N for camel-user@activemq.apache.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:20:50 -0800 Message-ID: <21437798.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:20:50 -0800 (PST) From: nojonojo To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Camel performance and scalability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: n0_j0@yahoo.com References: <21425064.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Thansk - I'll try to be a bit more specific. What are the performance/scalability implications of using Camel going to be in the following (simple) scenario: Receiving REST requests (with some component like the Restlet or CXF one), passing the data pretty much unchanged to and from two different data sources (about the only transformation would be that the data is split - some of the fields live in one data source, some in the other). versus using something like Restlets or CXF standalone? James.Strachan wrote: > > 2009/1/12 nojonojo : >> Sorry for the vague question, but what sort of performance and >> scalability >> have people seen with Camel? I haven't been able to find any benchmarks >> comparing Camel to any of the competition (or seen any numbers about >> overhead that Camel adds to coding an application with hard-coded >> "routes"). > > It totally depends on what you're doing and the configuration of the > endpoints but Camel can handle thousands of messages per second when > working with ActiveMQ for example. The only real overhead Camel adds > is some object construction (as we typically create a Camel > Exchange/Message for each underlying transport objects (e.g. JMS > Message or HttpServletRequest/HttpServletResponse). > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-performance-and-scalability-tp21425064s22882p21437798.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.