Mailing-List: contact qpid-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: qpid-users@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cctrieloff@redhat.com
 designates 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <472E7B09.1000208@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:08:09 -0500
From: Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cctrieloff@redhat.com
Organization: Red Hat
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: qpid-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: QPID M2 and Berkley DB
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>
 <129a14790711041641n423e2364i7f26e0a1853bd994@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <129a14790711041641n423e2364i7f26e0a1853bd994@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------070105020104050409060603"

--------------070105020104050409060603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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
>   


--------------070105020104050409060603--