From users-return-4243-apmail-qpid-users-archive=qpid.apache.org@qpid.apache.org Thu Jun 9 14:48:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A76468E8 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:48:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6252 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jun 2011 14:48:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 6172 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jun 2011 14:48:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 6164 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jun 2011 14:48:53 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:48:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [65.55.88.13] (HELO TX2EHSOBE005.bigfish.com) (65.55.88.13) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:48:45 +0000 Received: from mail42-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.242) by TX2EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.9.40.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:48:24 +0000 Received: from mail42-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail42-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8593A1BD8168 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:48:24 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: -17 X-BigFish: VS-17(zzbb2dK9371M1432N98dKzz1202hzzz2dh668h839h8f3h) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:173.12.30.67;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPVD:NLI;H:notes.princeton.com;RD:173-12-30-67-panjde.hfc.comcastbusiness.net;EFVD:NLI Received: from mail42-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail42-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1307630902368393_24350; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.236]) by mail42-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526AD2A004B for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from notes.princeton.com (173.12.30.67) by TX2EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (10.9.99.124) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:48:22 +0000 X-Disclaimed: 1 Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <4DF0A267.5020209@redhat.com> References: <4DF0A267.5020209@redhat.com>, <4DE921C0.2000509@princeton.com> <4DE92EB9.6050806@redhat.com> <4DEEBBFA.30708@princeton.com> <4DEF7263.7020505@redhat.com> <4DEF9139.9030202@princeton.com> Subject: Re: Recommended API for Python? From: To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:48:21 -0400 X-Mailer: Lotus Domino Web Server Release 8.5.2FP2 March 22, 2011 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by HTTP Server on Notes/Princeton Consultants(Release 8.5.2FP2|March 22, 2011) at 06/09/2011 10:48:21 AM, Serialize complete at 06/09/2011 10:48:21 AM, Itemize by HTTP Server on Notes/Princeton Consultants(Release 8.5.2FP2|March 22, 2011) at 06/09/2011 10:48:21 AM, Serialize by Router on Notes/Princeton Consultants(Release 8.5.2FP2|March 22, 2011) at 06/09/2011 10:48:22 AM, Serialize complete at 06/09/2011 10:48:22 AM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-OriginatorOrg: princeton.com On 6/9/2011 6:37 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 06/08/2011 04:11 PM, Anthony Foglia wrote: >> On 06/08/2011 09:00 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote: >>> async transfer is the largest impact, not acknowledgement. >> >> How do I do that? I'm already setting the capacity of the receiver to >> 1000, which we found was the best for the Python code. >=20 > I believe the issue is in the way you are doing this for the swigged=20 > client. At present you need to use the setCapacity() method to set the=20 > capacity rather than setting it as an attribute. >=20 > With that change in place I see the rcv=5Frate for the swig api jump from= =20 > ~1,300 to ~19,000 for 20,000 msgs. Thanks. I'm seeing the same changes. I need to change my producer to use = the SWIG interface, but now that I can see the speed up in the consumer, I'= d expect similar performance in the producer. > I would also echo Ted's comments, that the messaging API is really what=20 > we recommend, and that the swigged version when completed would be a=20 > drop in replacement for that (avoiding annoyances like the above). I agree that it should be a drop-in replacement, and I'm willing to help ma= ke the necessary changes, but I don't see where. In the 0.10 release, ther= e's the python package, qpidc-0.10/bindings/qpid/python/cqpid.py, that woul= d need to be patched, but I don't see that in the repository. Where would = the changes need to go? > [Just for clarity: synchronous acknowledgement per message would have a=20 > pretty similar effect to synchronous transfer (round trip forced=20 > per-message). Obviously if the acknowledgements are batched then the=20 > roundtrip is less frequent and therefore has less impact]. --=20 Anthony Foglia Princeton Consultants (609) 987-8787 x233 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org