From users-return-11049-apmail-qpid-users-archive=qpid.apache.org@qpid.apache.org Tue Aug 26 14:59:08 2014 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 3FA7C115C4 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:59:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7872 invoked by uid 500); 26 Aug 2014 14:59:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 7836 invoked by uid 500); 26 Aug 2014 14:59:07 -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 7815 invoked by uid 99); 26 Aug 2014 14:59:07 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:59:07 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.174] (HELO mail-qc0-f174.google.com) (209.85.216.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:58:41 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id l6so15546987qcy.33 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:58:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=XSHO5lM6ztSjjQxNVDosMZDUYsFqdddBDfujB93Rjm8=; b=hpoDD2LJv+DIp1eSBTdAQEAf5omENs8bdeYV2LmucssRIrwU9GRkCmnMz0BN3HoTGQ 9OP/Uozl4uXMYTRQYNoj3trJKhet60yDXzvrDytc+qQgRGKH4aZXmS4d7t60gRo35U+b QsTbNCpOgAHG/zYe6BoPxG+f/JeeeU6+GWm/Fcio1ZyJUpKoC+SiExj0nC+YxT/GnFD4 yYItIN7CUC1nbWqkGrsWB40g71QWYmsMExNjfjZfiJQJB5r832/KVRAeTMzR9sAznAy9 mkRND7gjXTp3C0Sa4giAFWey5Xd/H4CVcSsQcr/5wugs9/xoT2DwYu24qhynLw8LrUjs EMbg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.4.133 with SMTP id 5mr48641731qar.25.1409065119817; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.101.6 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:58:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1407410574668-7611393.post@n2.nabble.com> <1409033838334-7612537.post@n2.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:58:39 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Experiences with Qpid AMQP 1.0 JMS client in production From: Rob Godfrey To: "users@qpid.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c22108eed1e205018989b3 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c22108eed1e205018989b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So, first thing to make sure would be to make sure either both clients are in synchronous publish mode, or both in async... it makes a *huge* difference. (To turn off synchronous publish on the 1.0 client you can either set the system property "qpid.sync_publish" to false, or add the connection url argument sync-publish=false). We'd also need to look at how much of any performance difference is down to the client and how much to the broker... I see Gordon has already replied saying that he's made changes broker side on the performance of the C++ broker... I think it's probably also true that the Java Broker performance for 1.0 will be lower simply because we've not spent the time tuning it yet. Hopefully once we've got a few scenarios like yours we can start to look at tuning for the use-cases our users care about. Cheers, Rob On 26 August 2014 16:50, Adams, Cory wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I will pickup the test scenario later today and provide details. We were > doing simple bulk message sending to a queue with an asynch listener and > then comparing that to the throughput using the swiftmq driver. This was > against the qpid c++ broker. > > Thank you, > > Cory > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Godfrey [mailto:rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:40 AM > To: users@qpid.apache.org > Subject: Re: Experiences with Qpid AMQP 1.0 JMS client in production > > Hi Cory, > > On 26 August 2014 16:25, Adams, Cory wrote: > > > Hi Rob, > > > > We are considering the JMS AMQP 1.0 client to be of high importance > > and central to the success of our project. We have found that the > > Qpid jms amqp 1.0 was indeed slow from a performance perspective. > > > > > Can you give some details on the slowness - both the observed performance > and the usage pattern. As I think Robbie pointed out in the other thread > it's important to make sure that we are comparing like with like (for > instance by default the JMS 1.0 client uses synchronous publishing, whereas > the 0-x client publishes asynchronously... the former will always be a > *lot* slower than the latter, but each client can be configured to use > either mode - arguably the 1.0 client is correctly implementing the JMS > spec by default, whereas the 0.x client is playing a bit fast and loose :-) > ). > > In general I might expect the JMS 1.0 client to be slower because we've > really not tuned it yet... but not orders of magnitude slower... and in > persistent messaging the client should not be the critical path. > > Is there a timeline for shifting work toward the jms amqp 1.0 > > implementation on Proton? > > > > > Robbie Gemmell is leading the work on the the new client - he would be in > a better position to give dates. > > Hope that helps, > Rob > > Thank you, > > > > Cory > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Godfrey [mailto:rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:40 AM > > To: users@qpid.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Experiences with Qpid AMQP 1.0 JMS client in production > > > > Hi Erik, > > > > I'm pretty sure there are people using the JMS 1.0 client in > > production, as it is the client that Microsoft points users of their > > Azure Service Bus offering to if they want to connect using Java > > applications. I'm not sure how many of these users are subscribed to > this list however. > > > > In terms of the client itself, it's obviously less mature than the > > 0-8/9/-9-1/-10 client (though almost definitionally it's as mature as > > that client was when that client was the same age :-) ), and doesn't > > have some of the features that the older client does (such as > > automatic failover support). Moreover the JMS AMQP 1.0 client was > > written before the Proton effort at a single AMQP 1.0 protocol engine > > was started - and as a result we are aiming to eventually replace the > > current JMS 1.0 client with one that is built around Proton so that > > overall our AMQP 1.0 effort is easier to maintain (Robbie Gemmell is > > leading this) . Until that work is completed we'll still try to > > address any issues that arise (there are a number of fixes for the JMS > > 1.0 client in the upcoming 0.30 release), and also look at introducing > > new features where they are in line with the work on the standardised > > JMS mapping to AMQP that is going on at OASIS. By keeping to standard > > JMS and the OASIS mapping there should be minimal impact in moving > > from the current JMS AMQP 1.0 client to the one based on Proton when it > arrives. > > > > As was mentioned in another thread, the JMS AMQP 1.0 client has > > certainly not been tuned for performance, so if you are looking to > > send millions of message per second or guarantee nanosecond latency, > > then it may not be for you. Overall all I can really say is that you > > should test it to see if it meets your particular functional and > non-functional requirements. > > > > Hope this helps, > > Rob > > > > > > On 26 August 2014 08:17, Erik Aschenbrenner wrote: > > > > > Dear Qpid users, > > > > > > so nobody has experiences with Qpid AMQP 1.0 JMS client in > > > production so far? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Erik > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Experiences-with-Qpid-AMQP-1-0-JMS > > > -c lient-in-production-tp7611393p7612537.html > > > Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For > > > additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For > > additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org > > > > > --001a11c22108eed1e205018989b3--