Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of markus.kohler@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.211.188 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=jZztXgK55+hrd/jr2qoAQ8aQA87sqaxcP3nB52vb2mj2ZqYz8uxw2sEXlHGvz1NTMU
         vEndBxbCkx0d2n39EiJLDLIwd3bVxsbuMdliAnTkQ3xmr3/EDlRSgtXPvWHv6Bnq0I1O
         GzlHMkQ3rFC+DwieofCzkOjHaOF4JUTLQcUS0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fa2d9f450912150541p10c15e58rf6a6486ed17ae930@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fa2d9f450912142029i114ddac4of870268b5d2e96fa@mail.gmail.com>
	 <771905290912142358i5a7b38f4w8020ac84b582d4ae@mail.gmail.com>
	 <68f4a0e80912150537t31517f7ao43e936513aa50480@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa2d9f450912150541p10c15e58rf6a6486ed17ae930@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:56:34 +0100
Message-ID: <771905290912150556v54d85047yaa86a5e00a3ba854@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Anybody doing load tests on the test stax instance yesterday?
From: Markus Kohler <markus.kohler@gmail.com>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f860b80fda43047ac4c29c

--001485f860b80fda43047ac4c29c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Dick,
I think I found a way to break it ;-)
More on this most likely tomorrow :-)

Is Stax running on Derby as well?
What other DB's have you tried yet?
Which one would be recommended?
MySql, Postgres?

Regards,
Markus

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it" -- Alan Kay


On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com>wrote:

> I think it was more than the just the growl tests. The server handled
> it well irregardless of where the load came from :->
>
> D.
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Ethan Jewett <esjewett@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, my Growl client prototype was making requests every 2 seconds
> > for several hours on Sunday because I forgot to change the long-poll
> > timeout back to 300 seconds. Also, if requests from it are not
> > successful it doesn't currently behave very well and just keeps trying
> > to request messages as fast as its little legs can run. Need to fix
> > that....
> >
> > Ethan
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Markus Kohler <markus.kohler@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Dick,
> >> I'm guilty of course ;-)
> >>
> >> I played around with a test which would send messages with several users
> in
> >> parallel. It's not fully working yet, but I got some hints in the mean
> time,
> >> why it is not.
> >> I "forgot" to add a log off step, ok I was lazy. That probably explains
> the
> >> high number of sessions. The "response time" is very hard to measure for
> >> ESME because the POST that sends the message is usually very quick, but
> when
> >> the message shows up somewhere is hard to detect.
> >>
> >> Markus
> >> "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" -- Alan Kay
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Was anybody doing load tests yesterday on the
> >>> http://esmecloudserverapache.DickHirsch.staxapps.net instance?
> >>>
> >>> I just have a few bits of information since the display of Stax logs
> >>> is restricted to a certain length.
> >>>
> >>> Sessions went from 0 to 40,000 in less than an hour.  We also had
> >>> 1,800 requests in the same time period. Memory was high at 333 MB but
> >>> CPU utilization was low at 15% during the tests and rose later to 25%.
> >>>  Request time remained low at 20 seconds but this doesn't tell me much
> >>> since I don't know what requests were being used.
> >>>
> >>> D.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

--001485f860b80fda43047ac4c29c--