BTW for the consumer tests, are there pleny of messages on the queue
before you start trying to consume? How does the performance differ
between linux and windows if you disable persistence?
The only real difference between the two - assuming things are not
CPU, network or IO bound is the performance of the disk writes.
Persistent sending/consuming of messages by default requires blocking
the client until the broker does a sync-to-disk of the journal.
Is the broker running on a local file system or a shared network drive?
On 8/24/06, kaipa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've read through archives and found that some people experience the same
problem but there were no solution. Tests work great fast on Windows Laptop
but unbarely slow on Linux server.
- I have the standard configuration from Latest AMQ release (4.*). The only
difference that I have tried Kaha persistence that works much faster than
JDBCJournal. I tried JDBCJournal as well -- perfomance difference is the
same.
- I use tcp transport
- Queue is persistent
- Session is transactional
First pair of tests commit session after every message. Second pair commit
after all messages are sent or received. I am especially concerned about
first pair that is too slow.
Windows:
Testing QService.sendMessage()
500 ops 453ms
Average speed: 1103 ops/s
Testing QService.consumeMessage()
500 ops 484ms
Average speed: 1033 ops/s
Testing QService.sendMessageNoCommit()
500 ops 188ms
Average speed: 2659 ops/s
Testing QService.consumeMessageNoCommit()
500 ops 125ms
Average speed: 4000 ops/s
Linux:
[java] Testing QService.sendMessage()
[java] 500 ops 22290ms
[java] Average speed: 22 ops/s
[java] Testing QService.consumeMessage()
[java] 500 ops 40366ms
[java] Average speed: 12 ops/s
[java] Testing QService.sendMessageNoCommit()
[java] 500 ops 926ms
[java] Average speed: 539 ops/s
[java] Testing QService.consumeMessageNoCommit()
[java] 500 ops 1017ms
[java] Average speed: 491 ops/s
I suspect it is something with activemq io libraries. Java web services work
fine on the same server, the problem is only with activemq.
Please, advise where I can look into
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Bad-AMQ-Linux-performance-tf2159490.html#a5966799
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
