qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: QPID M2 and Berkley DB
Date Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:08:09 GMT

Andy,

In a few weeks it might be worth giving the C++ broker with the async 
store a run. We are still
tracking some bugs but are able to beat bdb performance by orders. If 
you like I can post some
numbers later this week.

Carl.

Robert Greig wrote:
> On 04/11/2007, Andy Grove <andy@codesuccess.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Sure. That makes sense. In fact, I'm working on a product/solution where
>> I'll be using messaging and databases in a transactional way and it's
>> imperative that the performance of messaging (with persistent messages,
>> durable subscribers and transactions) is faster than the database
>> operations. I'm in the process of performance testing a prototype of the
>> solution and I'll be using QPID M2 and Berkeley DB for now and will see how
>> the performance looks.
>>     
>
> It will be interesting if you could share your findings with us. In
> our performance testing (admittedly with a SAN) we have seen around
> 700 msgs/second (single commit per message).on a simple point to point
> test case.
>
>   
>> I don't have experience of HOWL but have worked with low-level transaction
>> code in the past (implementing an EJB container). I guess there's no reason
>> why I couldn't just have a go at creating an implementation of the
>> MessageStore interface - that would at least be a fast way to familiarise
>> myself with the work involved and see if it makes sense for me to contribute
>> towards this.
>>     
>
> Yes definitely. The BDB store is probably a good example to follow.
>
> RG
>   


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message