Hi Trustin Is it possible to do a testing on Mina2.0.0-M1 under heavy loading? The throughput value (messages/sec) somehow can't tell either messages deliver are dealy or lost. I am sorry that I can't post my code for reproducing the problems since the data source server data is too huge to publish to internet and also not allowed. Thanks again.
2008/4/10 Steve Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > OK. I did something. > 1) I used two clients connecting to server with 1.1.6. Two clients > received the same amount of messages eventually after I stopped the data > source server. > 2) Two clients to server with 2.0.0.-M1. two clients received messages > numbers are NOT same. (packet lost? if slow, two clients eventually should > receive the same amounts of messages when I stopped the data source server, > right?) > > 2008/4/10 Steve Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:16 AM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > It sounds like MINA 2 performs better when there's no data source > > > server > > > access. Did I get it right? :) > > > > No. Data source server is just a server which could generate huge > > amounts of messages. Actually I don't know how to simulate creating a big > > throughput messages and i simply connect to other's server. ^^ However. My > > way can't tell if it is IoConnector problem or IoAcceptor problem without > > further testing. > > > > > > > > Then.. that's very weird. What do you use to communicate with the > > > data > > > source server? Do you use MINA there too (i.e. IoConnector in > > > IoHandler)? > > > > Yes > > > > > > > > > > > Steve Johns wrote: > > > > (FASTER) 1. Client A -> Server with mina1.1.6 -> data > > > > source server C (8000messages/sec) > > > > (much SLOWER) 2. Client B -> Server with mina2.0.0 -> data source > > > server C > > > > I may try more clients and tell you the result. > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:04 AM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee) > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Which client was connected MINA 2, Client A or B? > > > > > > > > There was huge refactoring in MINA 2, so there can be > > > differences in > > > > performance characteristics. However, I don't think I have > > > changed any > > > > critical algorithm. > > > > > > > > What would happen if you increase the number of simultaneous > > > clients? > > > > > > > > Steve Johns wrote: > > > > > I used both mina1.1.6 and mina2.0.0-M1(replaced mina1.1.6 and > > > > didn't change > > > > > any other codes) to make two servers which are both connected > > > to > > > > same data > > > > > source. Two same clients connected to these two servers. I > > > > observed the > > > > > client connected mina2.0.0-M1 receiving much slower(maybe > > > missing) > > > > than > > > > > mina1.1.6 under heavy loading. (8000messages/sec). WhenI > > > stopped > > > > playing my > > > > > data source, client A received less messages than client B > > > did. > > > > All programs > > > > > were on the same machine. I wonder if any critical algorithmn > > > was > > > > changed in > > > > > mina2.0.0-M1? I saw one thread mentioning about M2 write slow > > > > issue. Any > > > > > idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat > > > > -- > > > > what we call human nature is actually human habit > > > > -- > > > > http://gleamynode.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat > > > -- > > > what we call human nature is actually human habit > > > -- > > > http://gleamynode.net/ > > > > > > > > >
