Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bpedman@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACsaS95ush5KrLptpB0uHu5rrnyNgoAJwquVsOt6V66DPX_7tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEqX17Msan4XH+kAXycp2C_dtw_tzmi40kO5uUQjUm98R1dqCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFitrpQZ2xeSKeFBsCoRix4XHEO2db9s_Keo2tR9iUciMLLAhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEqX17MviPDOw0UHz3rZORfichPeSQktN28M+-AHc2uT9N-MCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEqX17PxJx14GUA=hU8v5iz8pcGz0rcNdAZgcTvvASofuY1PLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFitrpSvM-_e9o6iThF6yZw_Qjij25e02re7bGtAPqQ-MAk6wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEqX17P8jNOcndaSUsJfU2SMiw0fYPaX1-MVdFgNYQhtmv+m8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACsaS94aPtiZQa=WcZNwwFGK7pCHM3uj_yz+xGqMP=YSR2gKLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACsaS95ush5KrLptpB0uHu5rrnyNgoAJwquVsOt6V66DPX_7tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:50:56 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAAiPYj2qysHJCJ68MKZ-QhMhb4EXqquR4ZnLbJLjvSuFQ4-rbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DerbyDB vs BerkeleyDB using the Java Broker
From: Brandon Pedersen <bpedman@gmail.com>
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7de422025904b5e73c3e

--f46d043c7de422025904b5e73c3e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Jan 5, 2012 11:45 AM, "Rob Godfrey" <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4 January 2012 22:56, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In terms of BDB vs. Derby performance, I wouldn't be surprised if for a
> > single producer / single consumer case the performance is very similar.
 As
> > Robbie highlights, really the performance here is all to do with how
often
> > you can synchronously write to disk.  If ach store is performing a
single
> > write to disk for each transactional commit, then the performance
should be
> > very smilar.
> >
> >
> So, I actually spent a bit of time today testing this out :-)
>
> The use case that my users most often encounter with persistent messaging
> is where each message sent/received from the broker is sent in its own
> transaction (using JMS), and for the testing I have chosen a 1Kb message
> size.
>

> The Derby store does indeed provide slightly superior performance if you
> have eight or less active connections, but the BDB store scales better
> above that number. For completeness I have also tested the C++ broker with
> its async store, and another popular AMQP broker implementation
>
> You can see the results here:
>
>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_GB&hl=en_GB&key=0AqizD3Y_JixzdFhKZFctbzRWbWtMbE9CcnJzWjZMQVE&output=html#
>
> Note that other test scenarios (in particular not using transactions)
would
> likely give wildly different comparative performance, and message sizes
may
> also affect the results.  Obviously people should always test on their own
> hardware and with test cases reflecting their actual usage pattern.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob

--f46d043c7de422025904b5e73c3e--