qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vavricka <vavricka.to...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Java Broker performance
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:39:57 GMT
Hi,

hardware:
* Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4570 CPU @ 3.20GHz
* 16 GB RAM
* HDD ST500DM002-1BD142

timings:
Currently Java Broker 6.1.1 seems to behave as version 7.0.0 RC. 10 - 30
messages per second. Interesting is when I increase message size to 10kB.
Messages per second are same but throughput is increased ten times.
When I use nonpersistent messages everything goes smooth. Thousand of 1kB
messages are sent within 1 second.

There are no extra JVM options, just the ones which are present in
bin/qpid-server file.

Heap and direct memory on broker is also default - -Xmx512m
-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=1536m. I tried to increase to four times larger ones
-Xmx2048m -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=6000m, but there was no change in messages
per second.

Unfortunately vmstat gives same values pro CPU, I am sending at least top
output.

6.1.1:
%Cpu(s):  6.9 us,  0.3 sy,  0.0 ni, 68.5 id, 24.1 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.2 si,  0.0
st

7.0.0:
%Cpu(s):  2.4 us,  0.4 sy,  0.0 ni, 71.2 id, 25.9 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0
st

When we tried on server where message store was stored on SAN disk, sending
of messages increased to 500 msg/sec. With C++ broker on same machine we are
able to send 5000 msg/sec.

ps. I cannot create queue in 7.0.0 version by webgui when queue contains '.'
character, in 6.1.1 version queue with dot in name can be created by webgui


Keith Wall wrote
> Hi Tomas,
> 
> Nor can I reproduce any discernible difference in performance between
> 6.1.1 and the 7.0.0 RC with your Java code.  I have not tried the C++
> yet.
> 
> Can you share with us:
> 
> * details of the hardware (including the storage) you are using for the
> test.
> * the timings you seeing for your tests for both the 6.1.1 case and 7.0.0
> RC
> * any extra JVM options you are passing either client or broker side.
> * size of java heap (client side) and heap and direct memory (broker)
> 
> Can I suggest that you collect vmstat type information for both runs
> and compare?   My expectation is that CPU usage, disk I/O, and network
> utilisation should be approximately equal between the two runs.
> 
> cheers, Keith





--
Sent from: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Apache-Qpid-users-f2158936.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message