qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adel Boutros <adelbout...@live.com>
Subject RE: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with Qpid Java Broker 6.0.0
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2016 20:21:54 GMT
Sorry for the typo. Indeed, it was with 3 producers. I used 4 and 8 workerThread but there
wasn't a difference.
We want to benchmark in the worst case scenarios actually to see what is the minimum we can
guarantee. This is why we are using synchronous sending. In the future, we will also benchmark
with full SSL/SASL to see what impact it has on the performance.
> Subject: Re: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with Qpid Java Broker
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> From: gsim@redhat.com
> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:41:54 +0100
> On 02/08/16 20:25, Adel Boutros wrote:
> > How about the tests we did with consumer/producers connected directly to the dispatcher
without any broker where we had 16 000 msg/s with 4 producers. Is it also a very low value
given that there is no persistence or storing here? It was also synchronous sending.
> The rate is low because it is synchronous. One messages is sent to the 
> consumer who acknowledges it, the acknowledgement is then conveyed back 
> to the sender who then can send the next message.
> The rate for a single producer through the router was 6,000 per second. 
> That works out as a roundtrip time of 167 microsecs or so. In your 
> table, the 16,000 rate was listed as being for 3 producers. Based on the 
> rate of a single producer, the best you could hope for there is 3 * 
> 6,000 i.e 18,000. (How many worker threads did you have on the router 
> for that case?)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message