On 04/11/2007, Andy Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure. That makes sense. In fact, I'm working on a product/solution where > I'll be using messaging and databases in a transactional way and it's > imperative that the performance of messaging (with persistent messages, > durable subscribers and transactions) is faster than the database > operations. I'm in the process of performance testing a prototype of the > solution and I'll be using QPID M2 and Berkeley DB for now and will see how > the performance looks.
It will be interesting if you could share your findings with us. In our performance testing (admittedly with a SAN) we have seen around 700 msgs/second (single commit per message).on a simple point to point test case. > I don't have experience of HOWL but have worked with low-level transaction > code in the past (implementing an EJB container). I guess there's no reason > why I couldn't just have a go at creating an implementation of the > MessageStore interface - that would at least be a fast way to familiarise > myself with the work involved and see if it makes sense for me to contribute > towards this. Yes definitely. The BDB store is probably a good example to follow. RG
