Hi All,
As a follow up to this thread, I wanted to see where SJMS stacked up
against these results. Using the tests provided that included the
optimized Camel route from Clause, I ran the same tests against the the new
SJMS component with the following result:
[ main] SpringCamelContext INFO
Apache Camel 2.11-SNAPSHOT (CamelContext: camel) started in 0.201 seconds
Exchanged 1000 messages in 1279 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 893 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 830 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 676 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 628 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 624 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 450 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 447 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 445 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 449 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 453 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 395 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 401 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 388 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 388 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 385 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 389 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 389 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 388 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 387 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 387 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 390 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 386 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 388 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 386 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 389 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 385 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 390 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 385 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 389 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 388 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 386 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 393 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 392 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 390 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 391 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 390 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 398 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 394 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 394 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 397 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 391 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 395 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 391 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 392 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 392 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 391 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 392 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 390 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 393 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 390 millis
For comparison against the same environment here are the optimized Camel
JMS numbers:
[ main] SpringCamelContext INFO
Apache Camel 2.11-SNAPSHOT (CamelContext: camel) started in 0.123 seconds
Exchanged 1000 messages in 1367 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 978 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 857 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 740 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 703 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 732 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 636 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 497 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 476 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 479 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 465 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 437 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 428 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 428 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 423 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 416 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 420 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 417 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 416 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 415 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 420 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 418 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 418 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 419 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 416 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 415 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 416 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 419 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 418 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 416 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 418 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 420 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 421 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 420 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 418 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 417 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 424 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 421 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 418 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 421 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 419 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 427 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 426 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 427 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 429 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 425 millis
Exchanged 1000 messages in 424 millis
:)
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Christian Müller <
christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Christian Müller
> > <christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Great explanation Claus. I answered in the SI forum to make this clear
> > for
> > > them.
> > >
> >
> > Well you could match the examples a bit more. The SI sends directly
> > from the java code to a the JMS queue.
> > Where as in Camel its send to a direct endpoint in a Camel route, and
> > then to the JMS queue.
> > You could omit the Camel route, and send directly the the JMS queue,
> > like SI does.
> >
> This is what my sample do.
>
> >
> > Also disabling JMX performance stats may make a difference, but only
> > for really high end performance.
> > In this example its more the TCP / remote bandwith that is the
> > bottleneck, and the CPU cycles to calculate performance stats for JMX.
> >
> > Also in Camel you can disable persistent on request/reply when sending
> > (eg replyToDeliveryPersistent=false) but SI is sending persistent as
> > well. But as an end user you may want this in case you are okay with
> > sending the msg as non persistent to the broker.
> >
> > Also SI is having 10 concurrent consumers on the consumer side. Where
> > as Camel has 1 consumer only. But that dont matter as much as the
> > processing is just sending back the same message.
> >
> Yes, I tested it also with 10 consumers and came up to the same conclusion.
>
> >
> > In Camel you send the message to a bean, without giving a method name.
> > Which forces Camel to instrospect the bean on the invocation. A better
> > solution to match SI would to use the message translator EIP
> >
> > <transform><simple>${body}</simple></transform>
> >
> > To just transform the reply to the incoming message.
> >
> Yes, indeed. I will make an additional test with this config and publish
> it. My last post was not accepted on the forum...
>
> >
> >
> > > Best,
> > > Christian
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Christian Müller
> > >> <christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Thanks Adam for this pointer.
> > >> > I respond to this thread with an optimized version of the Camel
> route
> > >> which
> > >> > is about two times faster than the Spring integration solution.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Btw the default request/reply with Camel JMS is using temporary
> > >> queues, eg do not specify a replyTo queue name. The temporary queues
> > >> is like exclusive, and fast.
> > >>
> > >> The shared queues are for clustered / and/or if the queue is used for
> > >> other purposes/other apps etc. eg in some brokers its not
> > >> easy/possible to create new queues on the fly etc.
> > >>
> > >> And the shared option was the default from the early days of the Camel
> > >> project, and we have kept the shared as default since.
> > >>
> > >> Its of course documented in the JMS page. But I guess SI people don't
> > >> read the docs
> > >> http://camel.apache.org/jms (request/reply section)
> > >>
> > >> I logged a ticket to add some logging when shared queues are in use,
> > >> so the end user may notice this more easier, than go read the JMS docs
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5444
> > >>
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Christian
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, aedwards <a...@middleware360.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?128152-Spring-Integration-2-1-request-reply-benchmark-tests-showed-very-poor-performance
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> View this message in context:
> > >> >> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/fyi-SI-tp5716049.html
> > >> >> Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Claus Ibsen
> > >> -----------------
> > >> FuseSource
> > >> Email: cib...@fusesource.com
> > >> Web: http://fusesource.com
> > >> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> > >> Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> > >> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -----------------
> > FuseSource
> > Email: cib...@fusesource.com
> > Web: http://fusesource.com
> > Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> > Blog: http://davsclaus.com
> > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
> >
>
--
--
Scott England-Sullivan
----------------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://www.fusesource.com
Blog: http://sully6768.blogspot.com
Twitter: sully6768
