Hello Rob,
Then that is certainly why I was observing such different results. Although my setup
(client code and environment) where very similar, the messages were handled in a
rather different manner on the server side.
I've tried to disable persistence by using the persistant="false" attribute in the
broker element. I now have Queue results that are very close to the Topic results, at
around 0.25 milliseconds.
James and Rob, thanks for your help :)
Cheers,
Sébastien
Rob Davies wrote:
The big difference between topics and queues is that for queues, if the
messages have a persistent delivery mode, they are always added to the
message store. This is only true for topics if a durable subscriber
exists and is interested in that topic.
By default, the message store used is the journal, which uses a jdbc
store for its long term storage.
cheers,
Rob
On 15 Jan 2007, at 19:39, James Strachan wrote:
Are you positive you are using like for like - i.e. persistent
messages for both queues and topics?
You might also wanna try out using our maven based performance test
harness which makes it easy to test out your environment - it might be
worth seeing if your JMS code gets wildly different results which
could indicate some issue in how you are using JMS...
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-performance-module-users-manual.html
On 1/15/07, Sebastien Pennec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello James,
I understand very well that there are many factors that influence
such tests. In my
setup, I've tried to make the environment for both Queue and Topic as
similar as
possible, not to have the best results possible but to have results
that can be compared.
As far as I know, the default config for Active MQ does not use JDBC,
or does it?
Also, on my tests, it's the Queue that is 40 times slower that the
Topic.
My goal was more to have your opinion on the fact that, using the
same environment,
sending messages to a Queue is *much* slower that sending to a Topic.
Does that make
you thing that I've done something wrong, or is it something that can
be expected?
I am currently checking out the source code of ActiveMQ to run some
tests as
described on your website[1] so I'll see how far my figures are from
your tests.
Thanks for the answer,
Sébastien
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/jmeter-performance-tests.html
James Strachan wrote:
> In general, it all depends
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/how-fast-is-activemq.html
>
> if using JDBC persistence, there is a bit more work required to store
> a topic message than a queue (since topics need to maintain a list of
> messages each consumer requires, whereas a queue is logically
> equivalent to a single row insert). Also obviously, if there are more
> than one consumer, then the broker has more work to do with topics.
>
> But like many things, it all depends on what you are doing, how you're
> doing it and what your environment is. YMMV
>
>
> On 1/15/07, Sebastien Pennec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I checked on the list archive, but couldn't find the answer to my
>> current situation,
>> so here I am :)
>>
>> I've launched an ActiveMQ server on my machine, with the default
>> configuration stuff.
>> The only thing I've added is the jndi.properties file that I've found
>> in the
>> documentation.
>>
>> This jndi config file helps create an example Queue and an example
>> Topic. I can
>> easily connect message producers and consumers to the Queue and
Topic.
>> The server, as
>> well as the two message producers and the two message consumers, are
>> on my local machine.
>>
>> When I send messages to the Topic, I observe that the time it
takes to
>> send the
>> message is about 0.25 milliseconds. When I send messages to the
Queue,
>> the figure
>> goes up to 10 milliseconds. These figures are the average time
that is
>> observed when
>> sending 10'000 messages.
>> They are modified by the presence or absence of a consumer: it takes
>> approximately
>> 10% less time when there is no consumer.
>>
>> Is it a normal behavior? I expected the performance between Topic and
>> Queue to be
>> closer than that.
>>
>> Thanks for your help,
>>
>> Sébastien
>>
>> --
>> Sébastien Pennec
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework
>> for Java.
>> http://logback.qos.ch/
>>
>
>
--
Sébastien Pennec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework
for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch/
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
--
Sébastien Pennec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch/
