Mailing-List: contact qpid-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: qpid-users@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robert.j.greig@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.146.177 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=rq5n8EalBsssnIVL5l0cDLN785YBKiaOlKurhlSLbrOMbdRiUjylBhI5leq1VyhqhrOBOG5QuMVbEYp/gEnqYSldYR9VZGWq4UY7Kbyj0t+YxeP3wR9uf8b8JVP826azxGloRw3Tpghi6HAzIUCCZeWnWSUXi07Kl/wzbzykcck=
Message-ID: <129a14790711041641n423e2364i7f26e0a1853bd994@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 00:41:19 +0000
From: "Robert Greig" <robert.j.greig@gmail.com>
To: qpid-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: QPID M2 and Berkley DB
In-Reply-To: <002701c81ed2$35831e50$a0895af0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <aa4eb69e0710270300q4e8416b0k79d3804bfa3202b3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <99e30fe50710290331p6c2e169ey7c99b78c55c71c5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <000001c81e0c$814d5970$83e80c50$@com>
	 <129a14790711040114u7097330fn83358b8bd5b02aec@mail.gmail.com>
	 <000901c81ec3$dd6a5b10$983f1130$@com>
	 <129a14790711040236p1d3c50a3g829409ddd074db8f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <002701c81ed2$35831e50$a0895af0$@com>

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