qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Matos <bruno.ma...@paradigmaxis.pt>
Subject RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
Date Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:02:09 GMT
Hi Steve,

On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 10:49 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> These look like profiling info from the client side, is that right? It
> shows a lot of waiting, which indicates the delays are probably in the
> broker side. Could you please profile the broker while running your
> timing test?

Yes, I can do the profiling in broker, but notice that I use the same
broker all the time. Do you think it still helps? The broker is running
on Fedora 13.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno Matos [mailto:bruno.matos@paradigmaxis.pt] 
> > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:36 AM
> > To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Performance: C++ client - Windows VS LInux
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:49 +0100, Bruno Matos wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 07:50 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > > 
> > > > You're welcome.
> > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:06 -0400, Steve Huston wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Bruno,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm facing some performance issues with a Windows client.
I 
> > > > > > > made some tests and the difference is between 625857 
> > > > > > > microseconds/packet in Windows and 30110 
> > microseconds/packet 
> > > > > > > in Linux. This is the average of 10.000.000 packets.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The windows libs were compiled from svn tag 0.6, 
> > and the Linux 
> > > > > > > libs are from Fodera 13's Yum repos.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What version of Qpid did you test with on Fedora?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm using 0.6.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Some ideas? There are any precopiled distribution 
> > supported by 
> > > > > > > the project?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You can get a Qpid 0.6 installable from
> > > > > > http://www.riverace.com/qpid/downloads.htm, but it's 
> > 0.6 - probably 
> > > > > > not significantly different from what you tested.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > With this libs I get 573361 microseconds/packet. A little
> > > > > less, but not enough.
> > > > 
> > > > Right...
> > > > 
> > > > > > If you get profiling info that may help to improve this,
> > > > > please let me
> > > > > > know. I'm also available to help get that information.
> > 
> > I have two output files from Sleepy, with asynchronous and synchronous
> > session. Sleepy can be found in www.codersnotes.com/sleepy.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think I will do a simple test program only for this. What 
> > > > > do I need to get useful profiling information?
> > > > 
> > > > Output from any reasonable performance measurement. Something like
> > > > Rational Quantify would do it, or one of Intel's thread 
> > measuring tools
> > > > (I forget the name).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I have a simple program now that sends and receives 
> > messages. It starts
> > > counting time right before sending (synchronous), and stop 
> > counting when
> > > message arrives. I get 757 microseconds/packet in Linux and 39118
> > > microseconds/packet in Windows as an average of 10.000 
> > packets. I will
> > > try Very Sleepy free profiling tool.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Bruno Matos
> > 
> 
> 

Regards,
Bruno


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message