wang-jiahua commented on PR #10444:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/pull/10444#issuecomment-5276027663

   ## Re-validated on a Fresh Environment (2026-08-13)
   
   Independent re-run after the June measurement, on newly provisioned hardware.
   
   **Environment**: `ecs.g7.2xlarge` (8C32G) broker with a 500GB ESSD PL1 store 
mounted `data=writeback`, separate producer host, Dragonwell 21.0.11, 1KB 
messages, sync send, 256 threads, store wiped and broker restarted per run. 
Baseline is develop `e3458616d`.
   
   ### Broker Young GC, three independent runs
   
   | Run | develop | this PR | Delta |
   |---|---|---|---|
   | 1 | 94 | 76 | -19.1% |
   | 2 | 92 | 74 | -19.6% |
   | 3 | 88 | 72 | -18.2% |
   
   ### Latency, 90s, ~13M messages, 0 failures
   
   | Build | TPS | P50 | P90 | P99 | P999 | Max |
   |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
   | develop | 141724 | 1.57 | 2.54 | 5.86 | 12.96 | 351.93 |
   | this PR | 144236 | 1.54 | 2.54 | **5.55** | **11.71** | 350.67 |
   
   Milliseconds. Broker-side Young GC drops about 18-19% and reproduces across 
three independent runs, which is the signal I would rely on here; it lines up 
with the properties encode/decode path being the allocation source. P99 and 
P999 improve 5.3% and 9.6%, TPS is up 1.8%.
   
   Two things worth being explicit about. Send TPS is essentially flat in the 
earlier runs, and that is not a regression: this broker tops out near 160k TPS 
on the CommitLog append lock at about 69% CPU, so throughput here is lock-bound 
rather than allocation-bound. I also measured producer-side Young GC to see 
whether the client half of the change shows up, and it stayed at 26 for both 
develop and this PR - the message body allocation dominates on the client, so 
nothing is visible at that granularity. The measurable benefit of this PR is on 
the broker.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to